Barkin has even started dating again. "I go out with men," but the actress tells More that she does not appreciate being set up by friends and refuses to have dinner with strangers. "You think, 'Why am I here?'" she explains. "And if it's a great dinner, why are we having dinner? why don't we just go home? I mean, isn't that the more important question?" She continues, "Let's first see if the sex thing works, and then we could go have dinner."That struck me as oddly inverted. It's as if the physical chemistry of sex is more important than the interpersonal chemistry one finds through conversation and being in one another's presence. Or, perhaps more to the point, that she's suggesting that sex can't be enhanced by the spark of a positive interpersonal connection, but that the interpersonal can be diminished by poor sex.
I know full well where she's coming from. And I recognize that it's quite possible that two people who get along well outside the bedroom can be awful together inside the bedroom. I recognize the desire and need to establish the validity of the sexual connection before committing to anything more serious. But the harshness of Barkin's statement caught me: "Dispense with the first date nonsense. That can come later. Let's have sex. If that works, then we'll find out a little more about each other."
* * *
Question: Should wealth be hand-down-able to your offspring? It's all time-related because in one million years time I doubt anyone rich today will have any influence on anyone living then - through inheritance.
It should not be prohibited. But I don't think your question is related to social policy so much as it is a more metaphysical question about the enduring value of it.
It's interesting to note that some very rich people recently have eschewed passing the bulk of their estates to their children. Warren Buffet gave away a vast portion of his billions, leaving his children with "only" a few hundred million.
I believe there is tremendous value in having a child learn the value of striving for and earning their way in this world. Being bequeathed a fortune makes learning that lesson difficult. (See: "Hilton, Paris") I stand to inherit nothing ... in fact, in real terms a negative inheritance. I don't resent that. I am grateful for having learned the value of work.
* * *
I think change for the sake of change is not necessarily a good thing, especially where you can see that the change will make things less optimal than the status quo. However, when a change looks to be very promising (better than current) then it might be worth having a punt might it not?
Sure. But depending on the nature and extent of the change, might not a cautious approach be indicated?
* * *
I feel like a 50 watt bulb trying very hard to burn at 100 watts.
Very descriptive. But perhaps this is what drives you. People that do anything that others cannot do must be driven by something must they not?
Maybe. But my problem is I don't know where the off switch is. Guess what happens when a 50 watt bulb burns at 100 watts for too long.
* * *
These people just seemed more relaxed and human. Not scared to say the wrong thing, or do the wrong thing. The lower echelons can be such robots don't you think?
Yes they can. At the same time, the higher-ups can be bulldozers. There's a balance in there somewhere, I think. Or should be.
* * *
I have been assigned the task of reviewing the package for a Senior Certification candidate. I've interviewed him and his manager, but not the people who completed endorsement letters. I've tried contacting several of those people, but my phone messages and e-mails have gone unanswered. My patience is chasing down these people is utterly absent. I will hear nothing from them that will augment or detract from what they wrote in their letters. It is next to impossible any of the letters are forgeries. And someone who writes such a letter will not then contradict it in conversation. So what exactly is the point of calling them and speaking with them?
My view of all this is tainted by my general disregard for the whole certification process. In my mind, if a persons management chain feels the person has earned a "10," then the person should get a "10." Having three strangers -- novice investigators and only barely familiar with the candidate's work through package review and a few phone conversations -- act as the gatekeepers to that strikes me as foolish. And possibly within the boundaries of fodder for a lawsuit if rejected.
The candidate in question has these characteristics: he's quiet but thorough. He gets things done. He works hard. He leads by example, not by dictate. He is a leader not because he orders people around, but because in times of stress he seems to be the one who knows what to do and helps others accomplish the goal. More important, he's a man of quiet integrity who earns and does not betray trust.
I learned that by reading his package, speaking to him and his manager, and doing my best to read between the lines of the endorsement letters. What am I likely to glean by playing phone tag for a week just so I can hear the authors of those letters say the same thing?
Truth is, I'm angry with myself for dropping the ball on this ... I should have been more diligent but I wasn't. And now time is up and I have to admit failure.
No comments:
Post a Comment