Okay, I'm sure you've seen their work. The grammer police. Correcting the use of "their, they're, and there" on your posts. I'm not going to touch that. There is another word that needs to be addressed in my opinion.
But.
This is not so much a grammatical problem. Rather, it is a communication problem. We misuse the word. We use "But" instead of "And".
"And" means, "in addition to what I just said...".
ex. "I liked the apple pie and I'm going to have another slice."
"But", on the other hand, means, "what I just said is not true".
ex. "The apple pie looks delicious but tastes terrible."
Simple, right? Here's where we go wrong. Here is the worst possible use of the word "but":
"I love you, but..."
Promise me you will never say that again. So wrong. What's so bad about that? We really hear, or interpret that statement as "I don't love you, so...". Think about it. Whenever anybody says to you, "I love you but...", it always has a bad feeling associated with it. It puts you on the defensive.
Try this now. "I love you. And..." . Now you can't wait to hear what's next. It seems to solidify whatever is coming next.
Here's my challenge for you. Don't use the word "but" for one week.
Find another way to build sentences using "and". ("however" is a poor substitute and using it would really only serve to show a lack of creativity or concern for others) Not just with "I love you", remove it altogether from you're vocabulary. I think you'll notice how much it impacts communication. And communication is how we connect with other people and how we connect with other people is a big part of how we create our world, whether we realize or intend it, or not.
Peace,
George
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Monday, May 21, 2012
The "Right-to-be-a-Patriot"
There's been a lot of talk about making Michigan (my home state) a "right-to-work" state. I've heard the arguements from both sides.
What bothers me is the nomenclature. We see this a lot. Like "The Patriot Act". Regardless of what's involved, if you don't go along with it you look unpatriotic, right? Congress could call every bill they dream up "The New Patriot Act" and many of us would sort of feel obliged to back it.
The name"right to work" conjures up a picture of a place where only some elite group gets to choose jobs while others are cast aside and left to starve. Or that they do not have the right to choose where they work. That's not the case at all. In fact, it's ridiculous.
I am a plumber/pipefitter by trade. And, in the intrest of full disclosier, I am a union member. I have been for 35 years. I chose to join the plumbers and pipefitters union. I chose to work under a collective barganing agreement. This means that all of us who have chosen this option elect representatives from amongst our ranks to negotiate with the mechanical contractors who are signatory to our agreement. They negotiate for wages, benefits, and working conditions. This means if you are a member you get the same pay for the same work. Regardless of sex, race, etc.
Some of our elected officers are full time. We pay them. We also pay our office staff, and for the building that houses our offices and meeting hall. We pay "dues" to cover these expences.
There are many people who do not want to belong to a union. There are many reasons for this. Some feel that they can better negotiate for themselves. Some are suspicious of union leadership. Some just don't like the idea of paying dues.
In my home town there is one union mechanical contractor. There are a number of non union shops. I could choose to quit the union and apply for work at one of them. Likewise, the non-union employees could quit and apply for union membership.
If right to work laws are passed here, all it would do is to allow non-union people to work at union shops without joining the collective that negotiates thier wages and benefits. It would not give me the right to work at a non-union shop for the wages and benefits I get now. As non signatory employees, they could work for less money, breaking down the ability of union members to negotiate. And that's really what's behind the whole thing, but that's another topic.
The point is, right-to-work is a lie. Michiganders have the right to work wherever they choose. Union or non-union. This movement would be more acuratley called, The Michigan Anti-Union Act. That's what it really is. Anti-union folks would support it either way. Union folks will not. But voters who do not work in construction or industry are just going to be deceived. So call it what it is. It's deceptive to call it what it's not. That's what bothers me.
Peace,
George
What bothers me is the nomenclature. We see this a lot. Like "The Patriot Act". Regardless of what's involved, if you don't go along with it you look unpatriotic, right? Congress could call every bill they dream up "The New Patriot Act" and many of us would sort of feel obliged to back it.
The name"right to work" conjures up a picture of a place where only some elite group gets to choose jobs while others are cast aside and left to starve. Or that they do not have the right to choose where they work. That's not the case at all. In fact, it's ridiculous.
I am a plumber/pipefitter by trade. And, in the intrest of full disclosier, I am a union member. I have been for 35 years. I chose to join the plumbers and pipefitters union. I chose to work under a collective barganing agreement. This means that all of us who have chosen this option elect representatives from amongst our ranks to negotiate with the mechanical contractors who are signatory to our agreement. They negotiate for wages, benefits, and working conditions. This means if you are a member you get the same pay for the same work. Regardless of sex, race, etc.
Some of our elected officers are full time. We pay them. We also pay our office staff, and for the building that houses our offices and meeting hall. We pay "dues" to cover these expences.
There are many people who do not want to belong to a union. There are many reasons for this. Some feel that they can better negotiate for themselves. Some are suspicious of union leadership. Some just don't like the idea of paying dues.
In my home town there is one union mechanical contractor. There are a number of non union shops. I could choose to quit the union and apply for work at one of them. Likewise, the non-union employees could quit and apply for union membership.
If right to work laws are passed here, all it would do is to allow non-union people to work at union shops without joining the collective that negotiates thier wages and benefits. It would not give me the right to work at a non-union shop for the wages and benefits I get now. As non signatory employees, they could work for less money, breaking down the ability of union members to negotiate. And that's really what's behind the whole thing, but that's another topic.
The point is, right-to-work is a lie. Michiganders have the right to work wherever they choose. Union or non-union. This movement would be more acuratley called, The Michigan Anti-Union Act. That's what it really is. Anti-union folks would support it either way. Union folks will not. But voters who do not work in construction or industry are just going to be deceived. So call it what it is. It's deceptive to call it what it's not. That's what bothers me.
Peace,
George
Saturday, May 19, 2012
A really great lady, also a musician, started a page on Facebook a short while ago. The idea was to provide a public space for musical performers, and songwriters, mostly local, to post their recordings and share their music. It really took off. Within a very short period there were hundreds of members and posts. The thing has morphed a bit and now includes announcements, invitations to perform, etc. This well meaning lady posted on the page an idea for an event; a "battle of the bands". The idea was that all participating bands would pay an entry fee of $200. The bands would play at local venues, judges would determine winners cash prizes would be given and the emerging champion would be featured on a local TV program and would get to perform at a local festival.
Immediatley musicians took offence. "We won't pay to play" was the battle cry. Lengthy scripts followed, accusations were hurled.
I myself pointed out that we are professional musicians. We get paid to play. Asking us to pay for a chance to get paid was a slap in the face. She countered with a metaphor concerning the lottery and how it "takes money to make money". That turned out to be gasoline on the fire.
Another lady, a talented singer, came to the first ladies side and advised that the posting musicians were being disrespectful and "needed to chill".
I suspect you have already taken a position. That's how it goes.
Everyone felt disrespected in the end. No one intended malice, but everyone was a victim. And a beautiful thing (the Facebook page) got ugly. That's the real shame.
I'm going to private message her tomorrow and suggest we open a forum and figure out how we can do a show where musicians play music and be fairly compensated. This can still be a great thing.
We just all need to pull the same end of the rope.
Peace.
George Eitel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)