"Business information, this is David..."
Back in the Dark Ages when I used to help answer the Minnesota Secretary of State's corporate information lines, one of my major duties was to check on "name availability" for new corporations and businesses that wished to change their corporate name.
I had a computer that accessed a database; I would punch in the proposed name and an alphabetical listing of similar names popped up on my screen. It was my job to do a preliminary check, trying to determine if the proposed name conflicted with any other names currently registered with the Secretary of State.
Previous state law said the name standard for the filing of a business name was that names could not be registered that were "deceptively similar" to another on file. The name standard changed in recent years to allowing the Secretary of State to accept names that were "distinguishable" from all others registered. This helped free up options for businesses trying to file an acceptable name. It also was a big change in the law.
For example, under the old law, businesses wishing to file a name that contained the word, "Daytons" would have a difficult time getting a name accepted. Under the new law, a business probably would be allowed to file the name "Hudson-Dayton, Corporation" because the name is different and thus distinguishable from "Dayton-Hudson Corporation."
The key in all this is that names are not filed with the state to establish rights to that name. Rights to a business name are established by a business using the name in the market place and thus developing common law rights to its corporate name. So, while it would probably be possible to file the name "Hudson Dayton Corporation" Daytons no doubt would probably have a problem with the other business, and would send a room full of hungry young lawyers after the other company. If the other business had begun using the name, Daytons probably could claim any earnings used under the name "Hudson Daytons" infringed on their rights to the name and punitive damages would be awarded.
People took name registration very seriously. For good reason- deciding on what you should call your business somehow hovers over all the other decisions you have to make to succeed. No matter how good your product or service, if your name is inappropriate, chances are you won't make it. Registering a name was yet one more area where the threat of a lawsuit hung heavy in the air. The mantra I chanted after many of the tens of thousands of calls I answered was:
"That name appears to be available, however we will not make the final decision until you submit your papers and a final search is conducted."
Names are filed with the Secretary of State, the great keeper of records, for public information, to help maintain a certain amount of information on corporations. One of the major stress factors in answering a great number of these phone calls was having to tell callers that yes indeed, there was a $35 dollar fee for filing information such as a name or address change. "$35 bucks to change my address? I'm going to call my congressperson!" What people didn't understand was that the filing fee wasn't for changing the information, it was for the process of reviewing the change for legal standards, plus the costs of maintaining a database as well as microfilm and retrieval costs.
The point of bringing all this up is not to impress you all with my knowledge of filing articles of incorporation and corporate amendments. The point being the relationship that exists between businesses and the government is a difficult one. The current administration is moderately "business friendly" trying to establish an atmosphere that will keep Minnesota businesses happy and profitable. Working from the government side, I had to straddle the line between helping business people with paperwork, while also trying to deal with a public that wanted to find out as much as they could about the businesses.
With the changes we are all facing in our company, deciding on the corporate name will be challenging. To find a creative and innovative name that helps describe and promote our business will be hard enough. That the name has to meet certain criteria to be accepted for filing with the state, makes it all the more difficult. So for all of you with input on what our new stores will be called, good luck.
Next week: D/B/A (doing business as) names.
Monday, January 23, 1995
Monday, January 16, 1995
St. Rose of Lima Defeats Highland Park
In a clash of eighth grade private school girls basketball titans, the determined team from St. Rose of Lima defeated the mighty Highland Park Catholic school last Wednesday at the University of Minnesota Women's Basketball Pavilion.
Half of the game is available for asking via video tape, the other half is not due to a malfunctioning camcorder battery. A greater appreciation for the work done by camera people at sporting events should be had by all... Ladies and gents, these folks' job ain't easy.
Led by power forward Jessica Deutsch, the girls from St. Rose of Lima held off the feisty Highland Park team by a score no longer remembered by this reporter. In the end, St. Rose's trapping defense provided too big an obstacle for the guard play of Highland Park.
St. Rose won its fourth game of the year behind the solid ball handling, rebounding and defense from Deutsch, along with solid scoring from Cree, Jill, and the rest of St. Rose's starting five. St. Rose's inspired effort in a neutral sight arena proved that girl's basketball can provide for an excellent afternoon of entertainment. Pay equity aside, determination, spirit, and skill played with passion and intensity demonstrated that the game at any level is worth a peek.
Rumor has it that St. Rose's underclasses will exceed this year's group, and big things should be expected out of the program.
********
A NOTE ABOUT LAST WEEK'S ARTICLE IN THIS SPACE: Last week we had a tirade that probably made little sense to many of you. As you might recall if you read the article, I had a bit of a problem with the advertising and philosophy of one of our local newscasts.
The article was a self indulgent effort bemoaning the lack of ethics by one of our local stations. Yes, the article had little to do with what our stores are about, and most of you probably did not make it through the entire piece, but it had to be written. I woke up screaming one night about the travesty of Channel 4's news, and I couldn't get back to sleep until my thoughts were down on paper. I'd seen one too many self promoting commericals, one too many warm fuzzy newscasts.
An alternative viewpoint was expressed to me, for which I am grateful. Said viewpoint pointed out that Channel 4 is giving an ideal example of applying Quality principles to their newscast. Indeed, Channel 4 has followed the Quality mantra by listening to its customers and providing the service the customers have called for.
While my argument might be that journalism is not about Total Quality Management, it has to be conceded that WCCO is a business and thus applying Quality standards to its "product" is a customer friendly type of thing to do. This was entirely overlooked in last week's article and we appreciate the education given.
Perhaps it is the frustrated journalism student that lingers inside of me, but despite my admiration for those businesses that truly develop better organization and productivity via Quality, I can't quite convince myself that the role of the media is to follow the whim of its audience.
********
Here's a TV recommendation to all of you closers who get home sometime after midnight: The Late Late Show with Tom Snyder. Last week the show debut, and like Snyder's CNBC effort and the classic Tomorrow shows from the late 70's, this one isterribly entertaining.
Snyder is a charismatic interviewer/ personality. He isn't afraid to ask a difficult question from his always timely guests (the first week of shows featured Newt Gingrich's parents, Ice-T and Mrs. Huffington, Kelsey Grammar, and Jon Bon Jovi), and his laugh and sense of humor are infectious. Snyder is an ideal follow up to Letterman; arrogant yet never pompous; establishment yet skeptical; show biz yet entertaining. The Late Late Show is television at its most watchable: spontaneous, funny and for the bleary eyed. Snyder provides the perfect way to unwind and end your day.
Half of the game is available for asking via video tape, the other half is not due to a malfunctioning camcorder battery. A greater appreciation for the work done by camera people at sporting events should be had by all... Ladies and gents, these folks' job ain't easy.
Led by power forward Jessica Deutsch, the girls from St. Rose of Lima held off the feisty Highland Park team by a score no longer remembered by this reporter. In the end, St. Rose's trapping defense provided too big an obstacle for the guard play of Highland Park.
St. Rose won its fourth game of the year behind the solid ball handling, rebounding and defense from Deutsch, along with solid scoring from Cree, Jill, and the rest of St. Rose's starting five. St. Rose's inspired effort in a neutral sight arena proved that girl's basketball can provide for an excellent afternoon of entertainment. Pay equity aside, determination, spirit, and skill played with passion and intensity demonstrated that the game at any level is worth a peek.
Rumor has it that St. Rose's underclasses will exceed this year's group, and big things should be expected out of the program.
********
A NOTE ABOUT LAST WEEK'S ARTICLE IN THIS SPACE: Last week we had a tirade that probably made little sense to many of you. As you might recall if you read the article, I had a bit of a problem with the advertising and philosophy of one of our local newscasts.
The article was a self indulgent effort bemoaning the lack of ethics by one of our local stations. Yes, the article had little to do with what our stores are about, and most of you probably did not make it through the entire piece, but it had to be written. I woke up screaming one night about the travesty of Channel 4's news, and I couldn't get back to sleep until my thoughts were down on paper. I'd seen one too many self promoting commericals, one too many warm fuzzy newscasts.
An alternative viewpoint was expressed to me, for which I am grateful. Said viewpoint pointed out that Channel 4 is giving an ideal example of applying Quality principles to their newscast. Indeed, Channel 4 has followed the Quality mantra by listening to its customers and providing the service the customers have called for.
While my argument might be that journalism is not about Total Quality Management, it has to be conceded that WCCO is a business and thus applying Quality standards to its "product" is a customer friendly type of thing to do. This was entirely overlooked in last week's article and we appreciate the education given.
Perhaps it is the frustrated journalism student that lingers inside of me, but despite my admiration for those businesses that truly develop better organization and productivity via Quality, I can't quite convince myself that the role of the media is to follow the whim of its audience.
********
Here's a TV recommendation to all of you closers who get home sometime after midnight: The Late Late Show with Tom Snyder. Last week the show debut, and like Snyder's CNBC effort and the classic Tomorrow shows from the late 70's, this one isterribly entertaining.
Snyder is a charismatic interviewer/ personality. He isn't afraid to ask a difficult question from his always timely guests (the first week of shows featured Newt Gingrich's parents, Ice-T and Mrs. Huffington, Kelsey Grammar, and Jon Bon Jovi), and his laugh and sense of humor are infectious. Snyder is an ideal follow up to Letterman; arrogant yet never pompous; establishment yet skeptical; show biz yet entertaining. The Late Late Show is television at its most watchable: spontaneous, funny and for the bleary eyed. Snyder provides the perfect way to unwind and end your day.
Monday, January 9, 1995
It May Be Yer News, But It Ain't My News
Next week, WCCO-TV, Channel 4, begins a brand new bold experiment in local television news. They will have two newscasts broadcast simultaneously, so we the viewers have a "choice" in what news we want to watch.
On the surface, this doesn't seem like a bad idea, and in the age of clicking, this idea fits ideally in the way many of us now watch TV, with remote control in hand. But it's not the idea that's the problem here. Rather, it is the promotion of the idea as an example of a television station's devotion to "community service."
When television began, laws were written to ensure stations devoted some broadcast time to issues of importance to communities. This is what Sunday morning TV is all about. Much of the community service idea eventually settled into local outlets forming their own news organizations and airing their own 10 o'clock news broadcasts. Go to any city of any size and you will find newscasts that resemble what we are all familiar with: 23 minute broadcasts divided into "news," weather and sports. Most stations have one male and one female anchorperson, a zany weather guy and the rah rah sports fellow.
A few years back when Channel 11 was purchased by Gannett, the way that news organization promoted itself was with a cloying "KARE" campaign, with warm news and smiling Twin Cities residents waving at the camera at the end of the broadcast. Media critics, journalism students, Channel 4's management, and those viewers with some semblance of taste, scorned the pretentious "warm fuzzy" newscast. But damn if it didn't work and eventually the KARE bear's news became the runaway leader in the ratings.
This startled Channel 4, the traditional news leader, and they scampered in reaction to Channel 11's success, eventually launching a similar campaign to show that they too, cared about their viewers and community. Last year they began a "Your News" onslaught, which included town hall gatherings to survey what their viewers wanted on a local newscast; a softer 5 o'clock broadcast which was children sensitive (no unnecessary shots of decaying corpses or the like); and several spots showcasing their people working in community service roles.
The latest example of "Your News" is this split newscast idea where viewers have a choice of watching the normal Channel 4 news and a different version on Channel 23, with no weather, sports, Dimension, but with more feature stories, financial stories, and health and fitness spots.
The problem of all this is that it really isn't a major news organization's job to ask its viewers what they want to see. Part of being a responsible news organization isn't to pawn off the definition of what "news" is, but to stand by the decisions of the organization in deciding what gets covered and what doesn't, along with defining the tone of the stories. Unfortunately, most local TV stations do an extremely poor job in doing this, and it is truly a staggering responsibility. It's a cop out to ask the viewers to decide what they want covered and how it should be covered. The more people you ask, the softer the focus becomes. What's news for me isn't necessarily what's going to be news for you. People have said they want to see less bad news. But what exactly do they mean? What is "bad" news? Much of what is news is going to disturb some group of people, because it will go against how they normally think and feel. Often times news won't make the majority feel good, but it's not supposed to.
What is truly troubling about the "Your News" concept is the idea that Channel 4 is meeting its community service responsibility by the pandering inherent in the way they have chosen to improve their ratings. If it really is our news, how about dropping the pretense of objectivity, and admit that all stories require the bias of those reporting and covering the event? Admit that what is "news" is whatever will attract the most viewers thus it isn't really a "service," it's more like entertainment.
Part of the reason given for splitting its newscast is that there isn't enough time to cover all the stories that deserve coverage and now Channel 4 will have more time. If they are really doing this for us, why not drop all the advertising and give themselves fourteen more minutes and also eliminate any potential conflicts of interest and offending and pandering to their sponsors?
This isn't to say that Channel 4's news is any worse than its competitors. Indeed, the Twin Cities is rather lucky in that we do have an alternative in Channel 2's experiment from last year, a newscast that covers the day's top stories with a little more depth and perspective. But how about something even more avant garde than giving us another clicker choice? Why not just send cameras on to the streets, into businesses, and into the legislative and city halls and film the day to day events of our communities? Try something different that no one has ever done: cover the routine and let stories build over time. Why cover crime with such fervor and not cover the long term issues that lead to despair and dysfunction in our society? Why do we need the talking head anchors rather than using the power of the medium as an art form and let the video do the talking? Television news increasingly suffers from the apparent need for the personalities of the station to be stars and the reason people watch the news.
Channel 4 is doing a lot of self promoting, proud that they are breaking new ground. But until they admit that our news is still their news, we will all just have to put up with the annoying dishonesty of the campaign. And I for one, will be watching M*A*S*H repeats on Channel 9.
On the surface, this doesn't seem like a bad idea, and in the age of clicking, this idea fits ideally in the way many of us now watch TV, with remote control in hand. But it's not the idea that's the problem here. Rather, it is the promotion of the idea as an example of a television station's devotion to "community service."
When television began, laws were written to ensure stations devoted some broadcast time to issues of importance to communities. This is what Sunday morning TV is all about. Much of the community service idea eventually settled into local outlets forming their own news organizations and airing their own 10 o'clock news broadcasts. Go to any city of any size and you will find newscasts that resemble what we are all familiar with: 23 minute broadcasts divided into "news," weather and sports. Most stations have one male and one female anchorperson, a zany weather guy and the rah rah sports fellow.
A few years back when Channel 11 was purchased by Gannett, the way that news organization promoted itself was with a cloying "KARE" campaign, with warm news and smiling Twin Cities residents waving at the camera at the end of the broadcast. Media critics, journalism students, Channel 4's management, and those viewers with some semblance of taste, scorned the pretentious "warm fuzzy" newscast. But damn if it didn't work and eventually the KARE bear's news became the runaway leader in the ratings.
This startled Channel 4, the traditional news leader, and they scampered in reaction to Channel 11's success, eventually launching a similar campaign to show that they too, cared about their viewers and community. Last year they began a "Your News" onslaught, which included town hall gatherings to survey what their viewers wanted on a local newscast; a softer 5 o'clock broadcast which was children sensitive (no unnecessary shots of decaying corpses or the like); and several spots showcasing their people working in community service roles.
The latest example of "Your News" is this split newscast idea where viewers have a choice of watching the normal Channel 4 news and a different version on Channel 23, with no weather, sports, Dimension, but with more feature stories, financial stories, and health and fitness spots.
The problem of all this is that it really isn't a major news organization's job to ask its viewers what they want to see. Part of being a responsible news organization isn't to pawn off the definition of what "news" is, but to stand by the decisions of the organization in deciding what gets covered and what doesn't, along with defining the tone of the stories. Unfortunately, most local TV stations do an extremely poor job in doing this, and it is truly a staggering responsibility. It's a cop out to ask the viewers to decide what they want covered and how it should be covered. The more people you ask, the softer the focus becomes. What's news for me isn't necessarily what's going to be news for you. People have said they want to see less bad news. But what exactly do they mean? What is "bad" news? Much of what is news is going to disturb some group of people, because it will go against how they normally think and feel. Often times news won't make the majority feel good, but it's not supposed to.
What is truly troubling about the "Your News" concept is the idea that Channel 4 is meeting its community service responsibility by the pandering inherent in the way they have chosen to improve their ratings. If it really is our news, how about dropping the pretense of objectivity, and admit that all stories require the bias of those reporting and covering the event? Admit that what is "news" is whatever will attract the most viewers thus it isn't really a "service," it's more like entertainment.
Part of the reason given for splitting its newscast is that there isn't enough time to cover all the stories that deserve coverage and now Channel 4 will have more time. If they are really doing this for us, why not drop all the advertising and give themselves fourteen more minutes and also eliminate any potential conflicts of interest and offending and pandering to their sponsors?
This isn't to say that Channel 4's news is any worse than its competitors. Indeed, the Twin Cities is rather lucky in that we do have an alternative in Channel 2's experiment from last year, a newscast that covers the day's top stories with a little more depth and perspective. But how about something even more avant garde than giving us another clicker choice? Why not just send cameras on to the streets, into businesses, and into the legislative and city halls and film the day to day events of our communities? Try something different that no one has ever done: cover the routine and let stories build over time. Why cover crime with such fervor and not cover the long term issues that lead to despair and dysfunction in our society? Why do we need the talking head anchors rather than using the power of the medium as an art form and let the video do the talking? Television news increasingly suffers from the apparent need for the personalities of the station to be stars and the reason people watch the news.
Channel 4 is doing a lot of self promoting, proud that they are breaking new ground. But until they admit that our news is still their news, we will all just have to put up with the annoying dishonesty of the campaign. And I for one, will be watching M*A*S*H repeats on Channel 9.
Monday, January 2, 1995
New and Improved Newsletter
Yes I realize that one of the most depressing things about one of the most depressing holidays of the year is people's need to make promises to somehow improve, writing down resolutions instead of seeking real solutions. But if you can't lick 'em you gotta join them and we now pledge that in 1995, the newsletter will be bigger and better than ever. Before we unveil our promises to you, we would like to apologize for any typos that appeared in any of last year's issues. Must be that 586 Intel chip.
RESOLUTION #1: The newsletter will now be chewier than ever and with NEW IMPROVED TASTE!!!
RESOLUTION #2: The newsletter will join one of the latest fads in the world of technology and virtual reality: In 1995, we will become INTERACTIVE. Every week you can tear off the last page, crumple it into a little ball and toss it around the room. It's great fun, and most importantly, it's good for YOU!!!
RESOLUTION #3: This is the year that we also hope to become more user friendly, especially for our sight impaired readers as well as those environmentalists of you out there who want to save on paper costs and save the lives of trees. Later in the year we will offer a new service where you can phone in, and I will personally read the newsletter to you doing my best to recreate and use the many voices I hear inside my head!!! All to entertain and educate YOU!!!
RESOLUTION #4: We will cut production costs by cutting down on our consumption of breakfast burritos. And of course, we pass the savings on to YOU!!!
RESOLUTION #5: As always, we pledge to make you laugh, make you cry, but most importantly, make you think. HAPPY NEW YEAR ALL!!!
The 1994 Newsletter WOMAN OF THE YEAR
Recently, it was announced the newsletter was beginning to put together the information needed to decide, announce and salute our third annual Woman of the Year. Like any good bureaucracy, the proper people were notified, the most diverse committee was formed, and serious discussions began behind closed doors.
So, as we now step forward to honor the 1994 Woman of the Year, we'd like to thank all who had input in the output. The committee would like everyone to know there were several qualified candidates, and it is a shame that not everyone can win. Join us now, if you will, as the committee in its best pressed dress shirts, in its fanciest ties and dresses, and with its finely combed and quickly graying hair, does its best to brush out the cat hair from our clothes and recall all that were considered.
1994 was the year of the couple. You weren't no one this past year if you weren't no couple. Think about it: Loreena and John, Erik and Lyle, Tonya and Nancy, Kathie Lee and Regis, Bill and Hillary, OJ and Robert, Kurt and Courtney, ER and Chicago Hope, Heidi and her friends, Michael and Lisa Marie, Woody and Soon Yi, Conan and Andy, Jeb and George Jr., and last but not least, Rush. Man if further proof is needed about the value of bulk and teamwork, we'd like to know why.
Thus, it is with some irony that the winner can't really be considered a part of a couple. We've all heard about this person's failed marriage. And this person can hardly be linked to his counterpart in the Senate. Still, the choice for the Newsletter's third annual Woman of the Year was unanimous. This single person encapsulated the ugly tone of the year and the very idea behind the award itself: to identify the person who had the biggest impact on all of us.
During an election year of political unrest and ultimately an uplifting upheaval, one person tapped into the nasty pulse of the nation. Voters were angry and one person used this anger to fuel his so called, "Contract with America." Now disputably the most powerful member of the most powerful body in the world, NEWT GINGRICH's name no doubt will continue to haunt us all over the next few years. Perhaps now that Newt has the liberal loving, free ride pushing, drug takin', hippie sniffing, mutants from the counter culture that occupy the bunker like White House, on the run, politics of change will unfurl like nothing we've seen since the glory days of Reaganism. Yes indeed, it is with great pride and DIGNITY that the newsletter's 1994 Woman of the Year is so appropriately named. Our deepest and most sincere congratulations go out to you, Newt.
PREVIOUS WINNERS:
1992- H. Ross Perot
1993- St. Francis of Assisi
RESOLUTION #1: The newsletter will now be chewier than ever and with NEW IMPROVED TASTE!!!
RESOLUTION #2: The newsletter will join one of the latest fads in the world of technology and virtual reality: In 1995, we will become INTERACTIVE. Every week you can tear off the last page, crumple it into a little ball and toss it around the room. It's great fun, and most importantly, it's good for YOU!!!
RESOLUTION #3: This is the year that we also hope to become more user friendly, especially for our sight impaired readers as well as those environmentalists of you out there who want to save on paper costs and save the lives of trees. Later in the year we will offer a new service where you can phone in, and I will personally read the newsletter to you doing my best to recreate and use the many voices I hear inside my head!!! All to entertain and educate YOU!!!
RESOLUTION #4: We will cut production costs by cutting down on our consumption of breakfast burritos. And of course, we pass the savings on to YOU!!!
RESOLUTION #5: As always, we pledge to make you laugh, make you cry, but most importantly, make you think. HAPPY NEW YEAR ALL!!!
The 1994 Newsletter WOMAN OF THE YEAR
Recently, it was announced the newsletter was beginning to put together the information needed to decide, announce and salute our third annual Woman of the Year. Like any good bureaucracy, the proper people were notified, the most diverse committee was formed, and serious discussions began behind closed doors.
So, as we now step forward to honor the 1994 Woman of the Year, we'd like to thank all who had input in the output. The committee would like everyone to know there were several qualified candidates, and it is a shame that not everyone can win. Join us now, if you will, as the committee in its best pressed dress shirts, in its fanciest ties and dresses, and with its finely combed and quickly graying hair, does its best to brush out the cat hair from our clothes and recall all that were considered.
1994 was the year of the couple. You weren't no one this past year if you weren't no couple. Think about it: Loreena and John, Erik and Lyle, Tonya and Nancy, Kathie Lee and Regis, Bill and Hillary, OJ and Robert, Kurt and Courtney, ER and Chicago Hope, Heidi and her friends, Michael and Lisa Marie, Woody and Soon Yi, Conan and Andy, Jeb and George Jr., and last but not least, Rush. Man if further proof is needed about the value of bulk and teamwork, we'd like to know why.
Thus, it is with some irony that the winner can't really be considered a part of a couple. We've all heard about this person's failed marriage. And this person can hardly be linked to his counterpart in the Senate. Still, the choice for the Newsletter's third annual Woman of the Year was unanimous. This single person encapsulated the ugly tone of the year and the very idea behind the award itself: to identify the person who had the biggest impact on all of us.
During an election year of political unrest and ultimately an uplifting upheaval, one person tapped into the nasty pulse of the nation. Voters were angry and one person used this anger to fuel his so called, "Contract with America." Now disputably the most powerful member of the most powerful body in the world, NEWT GINGRICH's name no doubt will continue to haunt us all over the next few years. Perhaps now that Newt has the liberal loving, free ride pushing, drug takin', hippie sniffing, mutants from the counter culture that occupy the bunker like White House, on the run, politics of change will unfurl like nothing we've seen since the glory days of Reaganism. Yes indeed, it is with great pride and DIGNITY that the newsletter's 1994 Woman of the Year is so appropriately named. Our deepest and most sincere congratulations go out to you, Newt.
PREVIOUS WINNERS:
1992- H. Ross Perot
1993- St. Francis of Assisi
Monday, December 26, 1994
1994 Top Ten
10) The Noose of the News: The year certainly had more than its share of wacky news events. Locally, the cracking of the arson case raised a proud smile. In the sports world alone, we had the sale and salvation of the fighting Woofies; we had yet another baseball strike and the first missed World Series since the turn of the century; and to top it all off, the incredible OJ circus. With the growing influence of tabloid journalism, we see personal lives being dissected under the guise, the perpetual battle cry of legitimate news gathering and the "right to know". The ultimate example of this of course, was the incredible saga of Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan, perfectly scripted, purposely pursued by the "media" into one of the all time surrealistic journeys into the world of competition, corruption, greed, insecurity, insincerity and hype. All that was proven though, was that the escapism of the entertainment world is increasingly being mixed with politics and art into something perverse that is supposed to occupy us, concern us and matter to us. The unquestioned myth is that what is news is what is reported not that the corporate monopoly of the major news organizations and the sole basis of choosing what is reported is the film available, the gossip quotient, and if it makes compelling viewing.
9) Fabulous Babes of the Year: Sandra "SJL" Bullock and Liz Phair.
8) We Want Newt: Politics as usual? No way. Anything but that. OK, the government needs to "downsize" and the folks in Washington seem to have lost all grasp on what they are actually there for. Still I swear, I for one, will never vote again until someone, anyone comes out and admits they are a "liberal," a proud part of the counterculture, and deny the rewriting of history, that the mistake of Vietnam was nonsupport, and that JFK and MLK were deviants, and admit that government can help people, and that for some programs tax increases are necessary and that being tough on crime doesn't merely mean that you're against it and want more prisons and death sentences and so on and so on....
7) Bob's Events of the Year: In 1965 he plugged in and combined the dizzying, swirling effects of rock and roll with the pure joy of the written word. In 1994, he unplugged again and proved his contributions to his fans can take on so many different forms. One only hopes that the unreleased material from his MTV appearance will someday see the light of day (a version of Desolation Row was among that left out of the broadcast). His new song, Dignity is another timeless and priceless ranting from our best poet. Best lyric of the year? "Got no place to fade, got no coat. I'm on a rolling river on a jerkin' boat, trying to read a note, someone wrote, about Dignity." You want live performances? His was the only concert I attended all year and it was down in Rochester shared with a friend. Mr. Dylan proved even after the tenth time I've seen him, that he is still the most charismatic, most relevant singer/songwriter in our lifetime. Constantly challenging expectations, constantly questioning, and constantly coming up with ways to make one see something, feel something differently, Dylan continues to prove the power of music. If this is what growing old means, with grace and dignity and mercy, please sign me up.
6) The Song of the Year: A tie: Madonna's Secret, and Liz Phair's SuperNova. One song will years from now bring on memories of what this year was all about for me, the other continues the ascent of a shooting star.
5) The Album (CD) of the Year: For most of the year it wasn't even a question: Freedy Johnston's This Perfect World was like a breath of fresh air. I have played it over and over and there isn't a moment during the song cycle that doesn't ring true and add to what came before. The pictures painted beginning with Bad Reputation all the way through to the climactic Evie's Garden couldn't say any more. This is the one CD that I will still be playing years from now. But, the true gem of 1994 was Madonna's surprising "comeback" effort, Bedtime Stories. In danger of becoming a parody of herself with her recent output of music, books, movies and the embarrassing David Letterman appearance, who would have expected such a lush and moving collection of songs? The first two singles, Secret and Take a Bow are so well crafted that one is forced to reevaluate all of Madonna's recent excesses and once again consider what she might come to be in the future.
4) The Movie of the Year: The rollicking, rolling, always entertaining bus ride of a movie, Speed.
3) The Film of the Year: Hands down, Pulp Fiction. The mixture of dazzling dialogue, the threading together of multiple story lines, and the mastery of movie making and the love of the art itself was more than impressive. This movie stands as far above the rest as last year's best picture, Schindler's List did.
2) Television Event of the Year: During the unbearable, obnoxious, snobbish pledge "week" of our local PBS outlet, KTCA, came a gem of a rebroadcast, Frank Sinatra's 1974 concert, The Main Event. I owned the LP for years but to see it video wise, TV wise and other wise, was a treat. It's priceless just to see and hear Howard Cosell's introduction and the ultimate Sinatra banter, "I've never felt as much love in one room as I feel in this room tonight..."
1) Day of the Year: November 9. Reflection, deliberate introspection, evaluation and analysis. Survival and blessings for all that has passed and all that is still yet to come...
9) Fabulous Babes of the Year: Sandra "SJL" Bullock and Liz Phair.
8) We Want Newt: Politics as usual? No way. Anything but that. OK, the government needs to "downsize" and the folks in Washington seem to have lost all grasp on what they are actually there for. Still I swear, I for one, will never vote again until someone, anyone comes out and admits they are a "liberal," a proud part of the counterculture, and deny the rewriting of history, that the mistake of Vietnam was nonsupport, and that JFK and MLK were deviants, and admit that government can help people, and that for some programs tax increases are necessary and that being tough on crime doesn't merely mean that you're against it and want more prisons and death sentences and so on and so on....
7) Bob's Events of the Year: In 1965 he plugged in and combined the dizzying, swirling effects of rock and roll with the pure joy of the written word. In 1994, he unplugged again and proved his contributions to his fans can take on so many different forms. One only hopes that the unreleased material from his MTV appearance will someday see the light of day (a version of Desolation Row was among that left out of the broadcast). His new song, Dignity is another timeless and priceless ranting from our best poet. Best lyric of the year? "Got no place to fade, got no coat. I'm on a rolling river on a jerkin' boat, trying to read a note, someone wrote, about Dignity." You want live performances? His was the only concert I attended all year and it was down in Rochester shared with a friend. Mr. Dylan proved even after the tenth time I've seen him, that he is still the most charismatic, most relevant singer/songwriter in our lifetime. Constantly challenging expectations, constantly questioning, and constantly coming up with ways to make one see something, feel something differently, Dylan continues to prove the power of music. If this is what growing old means, with grace and dignity and mercy, please sign me up.
6) The Song of the Year: A tie: Madonna's Secret, and Liz Phair's SuperNova. One song will years from now bring on memories of what this year was all about for me, the other continues the ascent of a shooting star.
5) The Album (CD) of the Year: For most of the year it wasn't even a question: Freedy Johnston's This Perfect World was like a breath of fresh air. I have played it over and over and there isn't a moment during the song cycle that doesn't ring true and add to what came before. The pictures painted beginning with Bad Reputation all the way through to the climactic Evie's Garden couldn't say any more. This is the one CD that I will still be playing years from now. But, the true gem of 1994 was Madonna's surprising "comeback" effort, Bedtime Stories. In danger of becoming a parody of herself with her recent output of music, books, movies and the embarrassing David Letterman appearance, who would have expected such a lush and moving collection of songs? The first two singles, Secret and Take a Bow are so well crafted that one is forced to reevaluate all of Madonna's recent excesses and once again consider what she might come to be in the future.
4) The Movie of the Year: The rollicking, rolling, always entertaining bus ride of a movie, Speed.
3) The Film of the Year: Hands down, Pulp Fiction. The mixture of dazzling dialogue, the threading together of multiple story lines, and the mastery of movie making and the love of the art itself was more than impressive. This movie stands as far above the rest as last year's best picture, Schindler's List did.
2) Television Event of the Year: During the unbearable, obnoxious, snobbish pledge "week" of our local PBS outlet, KTCA, came a gem of a rebroadcast, Frank Sinatra's 1974 concert, The Main Event. I owned the LP for years but to see it video wise, TV wise and other wise, was a treat. It's priceless just to see and hear Howard Cosell's introduction and the ultimate Sinatra banter, "I've never felt as much love in one room as I feel in this room tonight..."
1) Day of the Year: November 9. Reflection, deliberate introspection, evaluation and analysis. Survival and blessings for all that has passed and all that is still yet to come...
Monday, December 12, 1994
Those Wacky Wacky Staff Meetings
You always told me, people don't do what they believe in, they just do what's most convenient, then they repent..."
If you throw a group of people into a room, people with various skills, different amounts of knowledge, different motivations and levels of commitment, and have them discuss common issues and agendas, the results you get can of course, vary.
Throw those same people into the same room on a regular basis, and certain truths in group dynamics emerge. Some people will lead the discussions while others remain silent, either actively or passively listening. Some will become emotionally charged when an issue strikes their interest; others will always seem to be aloof, completely indifferent to discussions, giving the impression they would rather be anywhere than where they currently are.
The quality and importance of staff meetings varies as much as the people involved. I have sat in on meetings where the value of the outcome was definitely enhanced by the power of group thinking; where the sum was noticeably greater than the parts, where the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the few.
I have also sat in on meetings where the group was so split, or so incompatible, or so poorly led that the results were downright demoralizing. The bottom of an admittedly mediocre state career was a staff meeting where the first agenda item we discussed was to define the meanings of the terms, "in" and "out." When was a person "out" of the office? Was it when they were outside the office proper, down in the breakroom, or did they have to be physically outside? To be "in" did they have to be at their desk? By the end of the discussion the eye rolling going on in the room nearly turned to tears as we never did agree on the definition of the terms but did prove that sometimes the taxpayers don't get their money's worth from state employees.
Now, as the leader of weekly staff meetings along with larger group meetings, I have learned the most important thing is to try and find a way to get everyone in the room actively involved, to create an environment where their input is encouraged at all times. To balance that with keeping everyone on track so the meeting doesn't turn into one long complaint or gossip session, is no easy task to accomplish. With effort, you do get better as you go along. The words Mr. Confident Conference Man, and the Personable People Person, and the Natural Born Leader all now appear bolded on my resume'.
The tone of the meeting is created not only in the chosen agenda items and their presentation, but in the room's ambiance, the mood set, the chemistry between the people involved, the structure of how the "leader" chooses to lead the discussion (do we go around the table and get/force everyone's input or do we create a give and take, free for all set up?), among many other variables.
Staff meetings can be a waste of time. With a desk full of work, often the last thing I want to do is set aside an hour to discuss issues rather than activelywork on them. Therefore, it is important to keep in mind the bigger picture; perhaps by participating in a discussion, an idea that wouldn't have occurred to me will be crystal clear to another. Meetings can be a place to see where the pieces fit together, how something I do, affects another's work and vice versa. Processes and procedures should always be questioned and examined. A group meeting is often the best forum for such an examination.
The attitude one brings into meetings makes a difference. Meetings can be WORK, a waste of time, but they can also be rewarding. To step back from the grind of one's workload to enforce the overall goals of one's group, can be a eye opening, educational experience. OK, it may not be as exciting as being on a speeding bus with Sandra Bullock at the wheel making googly eyes at you, but it can be fulfilling nonetheless. To want to make a difference, to want one's organization to be the best it can be, can be a job within a job. That's something those career conscious creatures long ago figured out how to best use to their benefit, advantage and advancement.
If you throw a group of people into a room, people with various skills, different amounts of knowledge, different motivations and levels of commitment, and have them discuss common issues and agendas, the results you get can of course, vary.
Throw those same people into the same room on a regular basis, and certain truths in group dynamics emerge. Some people will lead the discussions while others remain silent, either actively or passively listening. Some will become emotionally charged when an issue strikes their interest; others will always seem to be aloof, completely indifferent to discussions, giving the impression they would rather be anywhere than where they currently are.
The quality and importance of staff meetings varies as much as the people involved. I have sat in on meetings where the value of the outcome was definitely enhanced by the power of group thinking; where the sum was noticeably greater than the parts, where the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the few.
I have also sat in on meetings where the group was so split, or so incompatible, or so poorly led that the results were downright demoralizing. The bottom of an admittedly mediocre state career was a staff meeting where the first agenda item we discussed was to define the meanings of the terms, "in" and "out." When was a person "out" of the office? Was it when they were outside the office proper, down in the breakroom, or did they have to be physically outside? To be "in" did they have to be at their desk? By the end of the discussion the eye rolling going on in the room nearly turned to tears as we never did agree on the definition of the terms but did prove that sometimes the taxpayers don't get their money's worth from state employees.
Now, as the leader of weekly staff meetings along with larger group meetings, I have learned the most important thing is to try and find a way to get everyone in the room actively involved, to create an environment where their input is encouraged at all times. To balance that with keeping everyone on track so the meeting doesn't turn into one long complaint or gossip session, is no easy task to accomplish. With effort, you do get better as you go along. The words Mr. Confident Conference Man, and the Personable People Person, and the Natural Born Leader all now appear bolded on my resume'.
The tone of the meeting is created not only in the chosen agenda items and their presentation, but in the room's ambiance, the mood set, the chemistry between the people involved, the structure of how the "leader" chooses to lead the discussion (do we go around the table and get/force everyone's input or do we create a give and take, free for all set up?), among many other variables.
Staff meetings can be a waste of time. With a desk full of work, often the last thing I want to do is set aside an hour to discuss issues rather than activelywork on them. Therefore, it is important to keep in mind the bigger picture; perhaps by participating in a discussion, an idea that wouldn't have occurred to me will be crystal clear to another. Meetings can be a place to see where the pieces fit together, how something I do, affects another's work and vice versa. Processes and procedures should always be questioned and examined. A group meeting is often the best forum for such an examination.
The attitude one brings into meetings makes a difference. Meetings can be WORK, a waste of time, but they can also be rewarding. To step back from the grind of one's workload to enforce the overall goals of one's group, can be a eye opening, educational experience. OK, it may not be as exciting as being on a speeding bus with Sandra Bullock at the wheel making googly eyes at you, but it can be fulfilling nonetheless. To want to make a difference, to want one's organization to be the best it can be, can be a job within a job. That's something those career conscious creatures long ago figured out how to best use to their benefit, advantage and advancement.
Monday, December 5, 1994
Write Away
So what does G.A.T.T. mean to you and me? Not a damn thing according to the Woman with Ideas. She is convinced global warming will do us all in long before the effects of G.A.T.T. take hold. Melt those polar ice caps. Burn those holes in our sky. It's only a matter of time.
But that has nothing to do with this week's topic. Rather, we would like to take the time now to tell you about a friend, and for purposes of privacy and anonymity, we will refer to him only as "Debbie."
"Debbie" has spent most of his adult life wanting to be a writer. For a long time, this meant taking classes, studying, participating in philosophical discussions on the art and history of the written word, and most importantly, sulking and suffering the way writers are supposed to do. Then one day, "Debbie" discovered a secret; to be a writer, one had to write.
These past five years have been far and away the most prolific writing period of "Debbie's" life. He even managed to get a steady writing job. Some say the quality of his writing has steadily deteriorated over the years. Some say his best writing these days are his two sentence e-mail memos he writes in his day to day responsibilities. Others say a significant piece of work is far beyond his reach and that he hasn't written anything substantial for years. Some would even say he has only mastered how to hide behind his words to avoid what he simply used to say. But "Debbie" persists. He'll write until someone tells him to stop.
He has learned it is often times difficult to hear one's inner voice. It is much easier to get wrapped up in one's job, in one's social life than it is to grab the pen and paper during the glow of the late night embers, further isolate one's self and try to communicate what's inside to others who will hold you in judgment for what you create. On top of that, the mind can be at odds with what's in the heart; and trying to find the right mixture of thoughts and feelings, working through the defenses, is one of the biggest challenges facing any writer. Thus to find another who speaks the same inner language can be an inspiring and sometimes overwhelming discovery. It certainly isn't something one should dismiss and walk away from.
But another lesson "Debbie" has learned over the years is it is possible to be inspired by the wrong things. Since writing is 90% inspiration and 10% suffocation, to "Debbie" this is one big mother of a serious lesson to have picked up along the way. Much of writing has to do with being synchronized with where one is currently at; another piece is striving for what one can possibly be. To use energy on ultimately futile endeavors is a criminal waste of the gift of inspiration.
"Debbie" certainly has learned a lot. Perhaps the most important lesson of all, is one many children have instilled into them at the earliest stages of development: To share can be one of the most fulfilling feelings a human can experience. To find a mirror who not only understands the reflection but encourages it, with humor, wit, kindness, and love, can go a long way to cure any ailment.
But one has to remain challenged. Even a mirror can't give a true, lasting image. One needs to touch to feel. It's equally valuable to find inspiration that will continue to question what one has come to take for granted; one who'll get under the skin, and in the heart, and just won't leave. To understand the intensity of pure light, often what is needed are walls to bounce the light off of, to give it a unique perspective. A ray of light can warm either from the inside out, or the outside in. You can't learn to blow smoke rings until you snap your jaw and hold down your tongue.
So what is the universal lesson we all can take from "Debbie's" education? That unchanneled, unchallenged passion can paralyze despite its importance to any artistic aspiration or any other accomplishment. You can analyze and examine our culture, our society to the point of hopelessness. Eventually one has to get up and just do it (sneakers speak). Some of the greatest accomplishments have never been done. You have to do the day to day to get to where you will be tomorrow. Angels may walk the earth, but you'll run across a few people along the way. Good night and drive safely.
But that has nothing to do with this week's topic. Rather, we would like to take the time now to tell you about a friend, and for purposes of privacy and anonymity, we will refer to him only as "Debbie."
"Debbie" has spent most of his adult life wanting to be a writer. For a long time, this meant taking classes, studying, participating in philosophical discussions on the art and history of the written word, and most importantly, sulking and suffering the way writers are supposed to do. Then one day, "Debbie" discovered a secret; to be a writer, one had to write.
These past five years have been far and away the most prolific writing period of "Debbie's" life. He even managed to get a steady writing job. Some say the quality of his writing has steadily deteriorated over the years. Some say his best writing these days are his two sentence e-mail memos he writes in his day to day responsibilities. Others say a significant piece of work is far beyond his reach and that he hasn't written anything substantial for years. Some would even say he has only mastered how to hide behind his words to avoid what he simply used to say. But "Debbie" persists. He'll write until someone tells him to stop.
He has learned it is often times difficult to hear one's inner voice. It is much easier to get wrapped up in one's job, in one's social life than it is to grab the pen and paper during the glow of the late night embers, further isolate one's self and try to communicate what's inside to others who will hold you in judgment for what you create. On top of that, the mind can be at odds with what's in the heart; and trying to find the right mixture of thoughts and feelings, working through the defenses, is one of the biggest challenges facing any writer. Thus to find another who speaks the same inner language can be an inspiring and sometimes overwhelming discovery. It certainly isn't something one should dismiss and walk away from.
But another lesson "Debbie" has learned over the years is it is possible to be inspired by the wrong things. Since writing is 90% inspiration and 10% suffocation, to "Debbie" this is one big mother of a serious lesson to have picked up along the way. Much of writing has to do with being synchronized with where one is currently at; another piece is striving for what one can possibly be. To use energy on ultimately futile endeavors is a criminal waste of the gift of inspiration.
"Debbie" certainly has learned a lot. Perhaps the most important lesson of all, is one many children have instilled into them at the earliest stages of development: To share can be one of the most fulfilling feelings a human can experience. To find a mirror who not only understands the reflection but encourages it, with humor, wit, kindness, and love, can go a long way to cure any ailment.
But one has to remain challenged. Even a mirror can't give a true, lasting image. One needs to touch to feel. It's equally valuable to find inspiration that will continue to question what one has come to take for granted; one who'll get under the skin, and in the heart, and just won't leave. To understand the intensity of pure light, often what is needed are walls to bounce the light off of, to give it a unique perspective. A ray of light can warm either from the inside out, or the outside in. You can't learn to blow smoke rings until you snap your jaw and hold down your tongue.
So what is the universal lesson we all can take from "Debbie's" education? That unchanneled, unchallenged passion can paralyze despite its importance to any artistic aspiration or any other accomplishment. You can analyze and examine our culture, our society to the point of hopelessness. Eventually one has to get up and just do it (sneakers speak). Some of the greatest accomplishments have never been done. You have to do the day to day to get to where you will be tomorrow. Angels may walk the earth, but you'll run across a few people along the way. Good night and drive safely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
