A recent story has broke that HP spied on its board members to find who was leaking info to the press.  I’m very disappointed that it has come to this, but I think the story is being spun the wrong way by the very press that enjoyed the information it was getting leaked.

First of all, there is no excuse for “leaking” news.  If a board member thinks the news media should get some piece of information, then he/she should come right out and tell them.  And if he can’t because of non-disclosure rules and the board won’t let him, he should go to the press and make an announcement that the board is refusing to release important information to the press that he is unfortunately unable to tell them.

So in that sense statments in the article like:

“Speaking out is a time honored tradition in the age of ornamental boards,” McGurn said. “It’s something that management, and CEOs in particular, have hated — but they usually let it slide.” 

are complete bogus.  They have nothing to do with the situation at hand.  This was secretly leaking information not “speaking out”.  As such, I have sympathy for the HP board and none for the press.  But there is another half of the story: spying.

Just as similarly, the board should not have been spying on anyone in the company, board members included.  If they suspected that someone was leaking inappropriate information, they should go to the person, make the accusation, and go through whatever formal steps necessary to make a determination whether that person was indeed leaking information.

What this article and so much of the discussion surrounding corporate America seem to forget is that there is a HUGE difference between honesty and transparency.  The real goal should be honesty.  Transparency is only a substitute for honesty.  It’s a way to ensure that people are telling the truth because one can see the behind the scenes stuff to verify the information.

So the difficulty becomes, where does the stock market need to “force” honesty by requiring transparency.  I don’t have the answer to these questions as I’m not a financial guy.  But what I do know is that the fundamental problem is a lack of character that is most manifest in a lack of honesty.

And it bugs me that the company I work for, once a proud example of honesty and integrity, has a management team that with the exception of Perkins (who quit over the issue months ago) no longer appreciates those values on both sides of this dispute.

There’s an interesting point/counter point opinion duel at Forbes.com about whether career women make bad wives.

My first thought is to quote Benjamin Disreali “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”

See the problem with statistics is that they aren’t universally appliable.  (This is a point that Mrs. Corcoran doesn’t seem to understand in her use of herself as an anecdotal rebutal, but I digress.)  What does it mean when you hear that career women are 30% (or whatever) more likely to get divorced?  Would it be better to marry a woman you don’t like as much instead while your heart is still with the career woman?  See, we live in a world of specifics, not statistics.

Additionally, often what happens when gathering statistics is that really you’re seeing a different trend, one that is a only incidentally related to the supposed trend.  To some degree Mr. Noer admits this in his couple paragraphs where he looks for an underlying cause.  Shouldn’t it be the underlying cause that we should be trying to avoid not just career women?

If I had to pick the appropriate attribute that a man should be looking for in a potential wife in regards to this topic it would be to make sure you find a woman who puts her marriage solidly above her career in her priority list.  And before anyone calls me a male pig, I would tell the same thing to a woman for the attributes she should be looking for in a husband.

See, the real problem that can occur with duel working families is that the priorities get out of whack.  The career becomes a non-negotiable aspect of their life even when it means the end of their marriage.  When the time comes for a tough decision to be made (and that time WILL come, it’s just a matter of time), what will sink a marriage is when one or both of the individuals is unwilling to put the marriage first.  Often you hear stories of both individuals being exhausted and never having time for one another, particularly now that kids are part of the picture, and it’s tearing their marriage apart.  OK, fine, why in God’s name don’t you do something about it?  Shouldn’t one of you take some time off work?  Can’t afford it?  Well, change your lifestyle so that you can.

See, in the end, marriage is all about commitment and being willing to adapt and make the changes necessary to succeed.  Anyone who isn’t willing to make those changes, they’re not going to be very happy in a marriage.

Oh, and before I close, raising kids is difficult enough with a parent at home.  Anyone who expects to do have children better be ready to have one of the two parents at home at some point or deal with the significant downsides of not doing so.

I was reading an article about the recent approval of plan-B for over-the-counter sales (ugh, so let me get this straight: the low dose form (aka birth-control pills) those require a prescription, but the high dose plan-B doesn’t?) and it struck me (as it has before) how much the word pregnancy has become a bad word like cancer.  “Anything we can do to prevent a pregancy!”

Just another example of how the world has changed to see the family and new life as a bad thing.

I was reading an article about pharmacists and dispensing birth-control or abortifacients.  The arguments continue to amaze me.  It’s best summed up by one line in the article:

“The discussion often comes down to one of rights: the right of pharmacists not to do something that violates their consciences versus the right of patients to obtain legally prescribed medications.”

Since when is “obtaining legally prescribed medications” a right?  I’m pretty darned sure that if a person shows up at a pharmacy without money their “right” to that medication will be refused.  In other words, there is no right to medical treatment in this country.

It seems to me that yet again the issue is that the debate is being held in the wrong arena.  If I go to an Indian resturant and they “refuse” to serve me a steak, is my “right” to eat beef being violated?  No, it isn’t.  If I want a steak, I need to go somewhere else.  However, it is well within my rights to refuse to eat there and/or put pressure on the company/resturant to sell steaks.

I believe the same scenario applies to the medical industry as a whole.

I’ve got no problem (from a legal/governmental perspective) with Planned Parenthood protesting Target for allowing their pharamists to exercise their freedom of conscience by not dispensing plan-B.  I’ve also got no problem with Walmart firing a pharacist who exercises their freedom of conscience just as I’ve got no problem with Cattlemans Steak House firing an Indian chef who refuses to cook a steak.

But I DO have a problem with the government forcing people to do things they do not want to do, including pharmacists who would otherwise be able to keep their jobs.

So, to recap: If you want a steak, don’t go to an Indian resturant. If you want fried dog for dinner, you may have to drive a while to find a place that will serve it to you.  If you want your pharmacist to give you what he considers to be immoral prescriptions, go find a new pharmacist.  If there aren’t any pharmacists who will fill your prescription in the area, do what any fried dog lover would do: move/go somewhere where you can.

Update (after comment #8): My brother has posted on the subject.  The key quote that shows his lack of consistency: “I believe that no one should ever force their morals onto someone else, and that includes me forcing my morals onto Pharmacists, but honestly, if they don’t like the rules of being a pharmacist, they can get another  job for all I care.”

So, no forcing morals on Pharmacists… except they should do what you say or get a new career?

I was reading a blog post over at Dale Price’s blog where he was seeking advice on how to deal with daily Mass attendees who criticize his wife for bringing the children to Mass.  My suggestion was to forgive those who comment and continue to bring the kids.

But the issue got me to thinking about a father’s role in the family and forgiveness.  Moments like the one Dale points to are infuriating to the family.  It’s easy to get really angry.  Sadly forgiveness if often seen as a wimpy solution to the problem.  To use a different word besides wimpy, try efiminate.

There is frequent talk about why men don’t come to Church and a big reason is because Church is put in very feminine terms these days: love, peace, forgiveness (in the wimpy sense).  Many talk about changing the things we emphasize to cater more to men.  While I think there are some things that need to be done in this regard, the big risk here is that we miss that love, peace and forgiveness are not necessarily femine things.

Specifically with forgiveness, it takes great strength to forgive when threatened or abused.  I think of the example from the movie Braveheart where Wallace asks forgiveness of his father-in-law for the events that led to his wife (his father-in-law’s daughter) being killed by the authorities.  Wallace gets down on one knee in front of him.  The father-in-law puts out his shaking hand at first as if to grab him in a violent way.  He then recoils slightly, calms his hand, and places it on Wallaces head in an act of forgiveness.

THAT is a masculine forgiveness.  One that takes strength, honor and discipline.  One that summons all the strength one has to muster.

We as fathers need to instill that sense of forgiveness in our families.  We need to teach it to our children.  We need to be leaders with our wifes in displaying it.  We need to help our priests proclaim this masculine nature of forgiveness.  That turn the other cheek is NOT about some mild tap and a wimpy reply, that it is about being repeatedly pounded to the ground and having the fortitude quell the pain, to stand up and look your aggressor boldly in the eyes while you stand before him and proclaim “I forgive you”.

Those who know my father and I, know that we have had a few blowouts over whether there is objective moral truth or not.

Well, my new pal Steven Colbert has done a done a segment on the subject of objective truth.  And while it doesn’t specifically reference morals, I think the same principles apply to morals.  Plus, it’s a good primer on the risks of using wikipedia.

After the big showdown in Boston over Catholic Charities and gay adoption, the SF arch-diocese has decided to pre-emptively address the problem before the pressure grew to unsustainable levels.  However their solution is completely unacceptable.  As much as the article tries to put the solution in a good light, it’s nothing more than the arch-diocese “washing their hands” of their moral responsibility.  Let me give you some other “headlines” that illustrate the point:

• “Catholic Church sends pedophile priests to be public school teachers”
• “Catholic Church sells obstetric portion of hospital to Planned Parenthood”
• “Vatican to make nuclear bombs to sell to other countries”
• “Catholic Church sentences John Kerry to death, will have Texas do the execution”

If that wasn’t bad enough, not only are they “washing their hands” they’re doing so to an organization that is in business SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of helping with gay adoptions.  Just go look at their website.

To me that’s a case not only of “washing their hands” of the matter but also pro-actively subverting the Church.

May God have mercy on us all.

It continues to amaze me how many sound bites that are used routinely and considered to be compelling arguments are complete bunk.  Case in point, this statement by a Florida politician regarding Terri Schiavo:

“There are some decisions that ought to be left to God and family,” Crist said. “Had I have been governor, I would have not done the same thing” as Bush.

(That’s governor Jeb Bush for those forgetting)

OK, how many times have I heard “life decisions should be made by the family” touted in cases like this?  The problem frequently is that the family is not in agreement.  Specifically, Terri’s biological family (parents and siblings) ALL wanted to keep Terri alive while her husband wanted to see her life ended.  So it’s not just about “the family should decide”.  What do you do when they can’t decide amongst themselves?

Furthermore in this case, the case came down NOT to what the family wanted but what Terri wanted.  That was what was in dispute.  So really, the family’s interests were technically irrelevant.  If Terri’s husband had said in court “Terri told me that she would want to stay on life-support if she were in this state but I think it’s time for her to die anyway” (not saying that it is what was indeed the case, I’m just speaking theoretically) then the case would have turned out completely differently.  What was in dispute was that the husband thought she would want to die and her parents thought the opposite and there was nothing but hearsay for either side to present in court.

Finally (and back to the original sound bite), what does “left to God” mean?  Is he arguing that we should never do any medical treatment and let God either heal or not heal everyone?  The question is not whether we have faith in God, it’s whether we choose to follow God by doing His will.  We have to decide whether it is God’s will that a feeding tube be left in or removed.  We can’t just “leave it to God” and turn our backs.  That just doesn’t make any sense.

Obviously everyone who knows me, knows my opinion on the case and I’m sure that opinion colors this post.  However, I tried to be careful in this post NOT to make a specific judgement as to which side was right.  My point is not who is right, but just that the arguments used are completely irrelevant to the case.

Why do we as a public put up with this kind of crud?

I’m a pretty big sports fan.  I have football season tickets for the Cal Bears.  I try to make it to more than a handful of Oakland A’s games a year.  I sail much more than I can afford and which I could make myself even broke-er.

One of the things I love about sports the the purity of it.  At one end, the rules are simple and the winner is clear.  But at the other, we get to see our human nature played out in a very visual form.  Today I got another example of that while doing my morning blog reading at The Seventh Inning Stretch.  Here’s the quote:

“Today was no different, it was raining hard before one of the Easter masses I had to sing in. I joked and said that the rain was God’s punishment for those in line for Huston Street bobbleheads. Instead of celebrating Christ’s ressurection they were committing the sin of idolatry by waiting in line for a bobblehead. Of course, if I wasn’t obligated to be at church I’d be in line with all of those idolators commiting idolatry.”

And that’s our human nature in a nutshell.  We strive to be good and with the right re-enforcement, we are.  But that nagging desire calling us to sin is a powerful one, one that we have to admit we are powerless to overcome by ourselves.  But God has not abandoned us and is always available to strengthen us.  He gives us the strength to overcome our sinful desires.  All we must do is ask.

Today’s Gospel has one of the most important statements that Christ made:

“If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.” (Luke: 9:23)

This is from Luke chapter 9 and the context is important to fully understand the importance of what Christ has said. The 12 disciples have been following Christ for a while now. They’ve seen the miracles. But yet, one can imagine, the “newness” of being a disciple has worn off. Christ send THEM out to exercise demons and cure diseases. They come back amazed, knowing that the powers they yielded did not come from themselves but from Christ.

Then, just when you think they’d understand how powerful Christ was, something amazing happens. The crowds are persistently following Christ and have no food. The disciples ask Christ to send them home so that they can eat. Christ then amazes all of them by multiplying the little food that the disciples have to feed the thousands who are following Him. Everyone, disciples included, were amazed.

It is then that Christ asks the disciples: “Who do you say that I am?”

You can imagine that these overwhelmed disciples are ready to say that he is anything he wants to be, and they do. Peter recognizes Him as the Messiah, as the Son of Man.

But then Christ throws them a curveball. Instead of telling them how wonderful He is or rejoicing in their recognition of His divinity, He admonishes them:

“The Son of Man must suffer greatly and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.”
Then he said to all, “If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.”

Kind of a letdown, no?

What a challenge that was to the disciples and to us all. If you want to follow Christ, you must be ready to sacrifice more. I envision God saying, “You think you’re up for this? You think you’ve got it under control? You haven’t seen ‘nothing yet. Get ready to hunker down because we’re just starting!”

Today I’m in my second day of fasting and I am HUNGRY. I didn’t eat anything Wednesday and had my first meal of Lent today at Lunch. As I sat down to eat my taco salad, the salad that usually leaves me stuffed, it looked particularly small even though the cafeteria lady seemed to pile it unusually high (she must have seen the hunger in my eyes). I thought to myself, “this tiny thing has to last me until tomorrow until dinner!?!” Nevertheless I wolfed it down hoping that it would at least leave me filled for an hour or two. But I hadn’t even gotten up from the table and I was already hungry.

It is at these moments when remembering Christ admonision is important. I must remember that to follow Christ is to deny myself even in physical hunger. It means that we have to dig deep to find that strength to follow Him, no matter how hungry we may get.

All praises be to God for all the strength that He gives us! It’s time to hunker down.