Candid Comment - Understanding The Bible

Hello, it has been some time since I logged an entry here. I have been dealing with medical issues and other changes. But I can get back into blogging, YouTube, and podcasting as things are improving.

For those who do not know, I am a Christian. Well, I call myself one. I am not the best at the lifestyle, but I do try to live it. One of the things a person who follows the faith does is read the Bible. Christians are supposed to also ask for guidance from the Holy Spirit to gain insight into the meaning of scriptures and how to actually apply them to one's life. The Bible does encourage participation. James 1:22-26, for example, gives clear guidance to do what the Bible says. Now, one must remember that the Bible has many parts to it that touch on things that we may want to clarify before doing. 

One example of this is the scripture that talks about cutting off limbs to avoid sin. Matthew 5:29–30 is the scripture I am referring to. This is literal, meaning Jesus actually preached this. But it is also spiritual in nature as well. The sin of adultery was so serious in Jesus's view that he wanted people to understand its consequences, including going to hell. So he suggested that it would be better to have lost a foot, a hand, or an eye to be tossed into hell whole for the sin. Now, this is a grave and dangerous thing to do. Cutting a limb would lead to one's death. Never do this. Do not do it; you will die. Many people at the time Jesus walked the earth probably did this and probably ended up dead. While literal, this scripture is also meant to be read this way: Cut the thing that is causing you to sin away. Like porn or booze, cut that if you're walking to see it and do it. It is hard to do, but with some help from friends, family, and the Lord, you can. It just takes work. Lots of it. This scripture is hyperbole. It's meant to show how serious sin is, especially sin like messing with another man's wife.

Another well-known scripture is about an eye for an eye. What does this mean? Well, simply put, it is meant to say to use equal force. Exodus 21:24–25 speaks about this, and there is a footnote listed in the scripture linked. It was the law that equal force be applied, so if someone broke a bone, the punishment was that person's bone would be broken; if you killed them, then you lost your life. However, in the New Testament, Jesus flipped this; in Matthew 5:38–40, he openly suggests not to retaliate. In fact, he recommends we do the right thing, go the extra mile, and use the least amount of force possible; even offering to be kind and help them may stop the aggression. That said, there are limits. Certainly, if someone is really trying to do serious harm to you or even attempting to ruin you in other ways, you have every right to defend yourself by force if needed and the force of the law.

So why am I pointing this out? Well, simply put, people have some interesting opinions about the Bible, and while I respect them and their opinions, the record needs to be set straight here. 

People think that the Bible is nothing more than a bunch of stories, aka fairy tales. Nothing could be more incorrect. The Bible was written by real people who were inspired and led by the Spirit and Jesus,
and who had interaction with God himself. I know some will say, Ha, have you? Yes, I have. There have been many instances of close calls and some near-death experiences that I have had. The most notable was shortly after birth. At 10 days old, I was operated on, and the issue of an extra valve in the heart that should not be there was due to the German measles my mother contracted during her pregnancy with me.

During the pre-op, I was given my name in case I died. There is an archived photo I have seen of this event. Though I would be hard-pressed to find it, it was reported in the media. The minister performing the ceremony lost the kit containing the communion chalice and other articles. It was brand new, never used except during that event. Also, at least 60 other children underwent the same procedure that year; none lived. God is real, just as is that other guy with the horns. And this is no joke. The Bible is no fairy tale, and it is to be read with care. If you do not understand something in it, ask a qualified Bible scholar for answers or your pastor or priest. 

I know some skeptics are still going to read this and go, bah whatev. Ok, fair, but I just wanted to let you know that the Bible is a book, not just of stories, but one that can help you make good decisions and also comfort you when the going gets rough. Take a dive in and read with an open mind and heart. But don't be shy. If you do not get what the scripture is saying, I would do a go around the room thing to make sure you have a clear reading of what you have seen in the book.

Thank you for reading this article. Pass it on and enjoy the blog.

Candid Comment - Only A Sick Mind Would Dream This Up - Execution By Nitrogen

The idea of capital punishment draws much debate around the world and, in particular, the United States. The most common method used is lethal injection. But Alabama decided to try something different—a new way to kill a human that they felt would be even more humane. The state opted for Nitrogen, a colorless, odorless gas that exists in nature but is countered by oxygen in the atmosphere. Direct exposure to the chemical can cause death as it takes oxygen away. Essentially, what the state did was use a mask like a pillow, and they suffocated a man. It's hardly humane and most certainly not quick. Witnesses described the event as quite disturbing.

Equally disturbing is that the state would allow one of its bureaucrats to dream up this idea, let alone actually do it.

Kenneth Eugene Smith was no angel and certainly deserved to be in jail for the murder he was hired to commit in 1988. Let's be clear that he was imprisoned for a crime he committed, and rightly so. The death penalty is a hot topic in the U.S. Its use is polarizing, and the methods are even more so. There is no, and I do mean NO, humane way to kill a human. Euphemisms, like they will die quickly by being injected with lethal drugs, shot through the heart, and shocked in a chair, are ridiculous. Even the guillotine caused pain and suffering, and that was considered a quick method of executing a person. No matter what method is chosen, there is going to be pain and suffering inflicted on the person being executed. The point of the death penalty is to punish, to inflict suffering, and to not only do that to the person being executed but to their family as well. It is an act of revenge, a controlled rage poured out on the person who committed the crime and the family members they leave behind. I say this because, from a biblical point of view, there is room for the use of the death penalty. It is mandated yet prohibited and permitted under a set of rules and guidelines and is to be used as the last resort. The problem is that in many places, including the U.S., it's the first action, not the last one to be taken.

Moreover, the death penalty does not reduce or deter crime. Lastly, on this point, the people involved in the execution of the death penalty should be persons with a moral character that is above reproach. I am not speaking about people who speed through red lights or jaywalking. Instead, those who embody decency and respect have a character not tarnished by scandal or history filled with skeletons in the closet. In other words, the standards for going forward with the death penalty need to be very, very high. In general, that is the case in the U.S.; in every death penalty case, the ruling is challenged immediately. That said, innocent people have been executed. There is room for error, and errors have been made in administering the death penalty. 3% is the figure that is touted as the error rate for executions in the U.S., the highest Lethal injection, with a rate of 7% of executions being botched. Oddly enough, the only method with 0 is the firing squad.

So now states want to use Nitrogen, citing the same old message: it's fast, humane, and less gruesome. As I said, there is no humane way to kill a human humanely—none zero.

If this form of punishment is allowed, it might be better for states to adopt the following rules.

1. No circumstantial evidence. Most murder trials are tired of circumstantial evidence. The risk of error is too high in these cases, along with bias and binocular vision by the police and prosecution, which means the accused may not be getting a fair trial. It might be better to have a life sentence imposed instead of the death penalty.
2. In many states that have the death penalty, sheriffs and judges, along with prosecutors, are elected officials. This introduces bias based on political motivations. That should not be a thing. A cadre of law enforcement officials who are professionally trained, unbiased, and untainted by political affiliation should be the standard. In other words, Bubba need not apply.
3. The jury system needs to be changed in states where the death penalty cases are heard. The idea that you can have an all-white jury convict a black man or vice versa is not rational or fair. A balanced cross-section of the community is a much better way to go. This includes having people who are wealthy and poor serve on juries as well.
4. Public defenders, this is a shot in the dark. The reality is that while the public defender is trained and does have some skill sets that can be helpful in a murder case, they lack the time and resources to do the job effectively. This leaves the person facing the charge at significant risk. The only natural way to fix this is to hire more to lessen caseloads and consider other ways to fund private counsel for the accused, like the proceeds from traffic tickets.
5. The federal government should standardize the method of execution for all states that opt to use the death penalty. Everything should be the same in each state. How the case is tried, how it is appealed, how it is carried out, where it is carried out, and what method is used. In other words, combine the four other suggestions I have made and make it the way it is done in each state.

Lastly, anyone who dreams up such sick ways to execute a human should be kicked out of the civil service and possibly be required to undergo a mental health assessment. Only a sick, demented person would suggest suffocation or mutilation as a method of execution is acceptable. People who think like this should not be trusted or even allowed near a position of power. Only a psychopath would offer such an idea to the governor of a state. That is what this looks like from the outside looking in. This whole idea and the use of it was wrong. That said, Smith deserved to be in prison and may well have earned the death penalty sentence, but he did not deserve to be treated like a lab rat for a bunch of gouls who wanted to see what this method of execution looks like. Pro or anti-death penalty, this was wrong, plain and simple.

Resource: Death Penalty Information Center: Botched Executions.

Candid Comment - Review 2023 And What 2024 Will Look Like For The Blog

Well, here we are again, a new year, which means it is time to look back and see what happened with the blog. I also look forward to 2024 being just as interesting as 2023 was.

The top 10 list for 2023 starts with an article on December 8 about the return to work mandates and the conflicts they are creating. In the middle of the pile, my article about freelancing can be found, and at the bottom of the list, a comment about the tragedy of the Titan submersible was posted in June of 2023.

Notice a trend? Yep, I am writing more comments and doing fewer interviews for the blog. As time passes, the blog will be reformed into a comments blog as I move more interviews to my YouTube channel, Candid Conversations Zommed in, and Video Comments. The video comments are more or less fillers between interviews for that channel, and the main focus will be interviews on YouTube and comments here on the blog.

The rationale is this. While it is interesting to interview via email, getting the right tone and messaging is challenging. I am okay with the challenge, but seeing a reaction, hearing a tone, and getting a clear message across in a video interview is much easier. Also, unlike email, I can pivot on a point in a video interview and dive into the point of view being expressed right away. 

I will still do email interviews, but they will be less of a focus.  

Thank you so much for reading the blog, and a special thank you to those returning to read the latest updates. A new record of almost 20,000 views was achieved in 2023. WOW. That is so awesome. Thank you very much for taking the time in your day to jump in and read the content loaded here on the blog. So, we go into 2024 with fresh content and a new direction for the blog. Happy New Year, and thanks again for making Candid Conversations one of your content sources.

Below is the list of the top 10 articles for 2023

Canid Comment - Return To Office War - To Be Or Not To Be Like Elon Musk

Is forcing employees back to the office a great plan of action? The answer is mixed between yes and no. The better way to look at this is, will demanding a total return to office impact the culture and desire to work for the company so much that it affects productivity and, ultimately, the bottom line?  

9 in 10 companies will demand that staff return to the office in 2024. 28% will threaten their staff who fail to comply with corrective action up to termination. 72% of the 1,000 leaders surveyed said that the return to the office helped with the bottom line, and upwards of 80% feel that productivity will continue to improve along with revenue and staff retention.  

There is a real fight against the return-to-office mandates, with both sides digging in their heels. Companies are not backing down, and neither are employees. The result is a poisoned work environment. The so-called retention rate of above 80% and the better productivity are costing companies a thing they can not afford to lose: culture and the staff themselves. 76% of employees are prepared to walk away from their companies if RTO is enforced, especially if threatened with termination. In short, this is a war not worth fighting. Companies that have decided to do a full-on return to the office will not back down, and many employees will not. So where is the middle road?  

One key thing before diving in is this: some CEOs and bosses care very little about their staff.

Business Insider cited the following in a piece dated May 6 2023. Elon Musk has consistently criticized remote work. In an interview with CNBC, he strongly condemned it as "morally wrong" and called it "bullshit." Musk, who enforced a ban on remote work at Twitter following the company's acquisition, has never shied away from expressing his disdain for work-from-home policies. However, in this particular interview, Musk strongly asserted that remote work is not helpful for employees.

"I'm a big believer that people need to be more productive when they're in person." He went further, stating the following.  "Get off the goddamn moral high horse with the work-from-home bullshit because they're asking everyone else to not work from home while they do," he added.  

Musk also emailed staff, stating, "The office is not an Option."

Musk stated that in-office work promotes collaboration and productivity and improves the bottom line. Which is true it does. However, being the ass that he is, he does not see past his wallet to realize that the landscape has changed. Unfortunately, many others like him are dimwitted and can't or won't wake to the reality that how we work has changed. The pandemic was the catalyst for that change; like it or not, the so-called peons will not return to the good ole days of commuting for hours or juggling who gets the kids after school. They are done with it, and the sooner executives get this, the better things will be for everyone. 

On the other side of the coin is the reality that a return to office is a good idea and should be something most people can and should do. The pandemic is over, and trying to meet the employer in the middle here is essential. What needs to occur is an approach that sews seeds of respect between boss and employee. Doing so will amount to a healthier, more productive, collaborative group that improves the company and shows customers that the firm is worth doing business with. The model Elon Musk has in mind makes him and his company more and more irrelevant.  

1. Lesson one: You don't need to do the Musk. Doing so will bring the bottom line up, retain employees, and offer collaboration. But the cost, high attrition, a disdain for leadership team members, and a culture where the staff do the minimum to meet the basic standards. Is it worth it? You decide this one.
2. Create a plan and build towards the return to the office, and include your staff in the process.  
3. Do a risk assessment; there will be a cost to your business. Find out what that cost is and plan to mitigate or absorb it. Remember, the cost is not just in terms of money but in talent. You will lose staff, and some of them will be the best people you have in the firm.
4. Talk it up; make the return to office a positive event. Heck, throw a party or two as you go forward. On the day of the return, be there to thank the staff for coming back and do something tangible that staff can take away, like put a small gift basket on their desk.
5. Be flexible; a hybrid work-from-home plan is an excellent option to have in place. Some benefits do come with a work-from-home plan. Whether it is complete or hybrid, you should consider, and frankly speaking, offer the option to work from home.

I have seen how rigidly has played out in my company. The return to work enforcement went south fast, and the loss is still being felt. My company did the Elon Musk thing, and the productivity has increased, and staff retention is pretty good. However, respect for the upper leadership of the company has all but disappeared. Trust in them has diminished, and most of the staff just come in because it's a paycheck, not a job they love. The company rolled the dice and got what they more or less wanted but has lost the moral high ground. The slogans in our lunch room and locker room bay are meaningless dribble because of the forced return. The outcome would have been better had the firm implemented some of the above ideas. It is not a suck-up on my part to say this. The company I work for is one of the best in its line of business. I have been treated very well by the managerial staff from my boss on up. That does not take away from the fact that they screwed up on the RTO. After all, they are human and prone to error. The question will be how they repair the damage and restore the relationship to the staff. So far, they get a C on this. Time will tell.

Please don't make the mistake of thinking you can return to the Leave It To Beaver days of return to office. Work has changed, and it's time for employers and employees to get off their high horses and start working together rather than fighting over the idea of sitting in a cube vs home. It's ridiculous to continue this petty war. The economy is in trouble, and bosses and staff members need to find the middle on the return to office mandate that includes working from home now rather than later. As I noted above, neither side will give in, so creating a truce and working it out is the better plan. Because if you do not, you will be just as irrelevant as Elon Musk. 

Here are some other articles that may give you some insight on the subject.

How To Implement An Effective Return To Office Strategy  Published by SHRM.org

Forbes has two article that speak to the topic Nine Out Of 10 Companies Will Require Employees To Return To The Office and In-Office Mandates Attacking Progress And Company Growth, But ‘Big Guns’ Not Backing Down

Entrepreneur Magazine h as this article out.  We're Now Finding Out The Damaging Results of The Mandated Return to Office — And It's Worse Than We Thought.

Business Insider also looked at this topic in it's article.  Swipe your badge or get fired? Employers and workers face a reckoning over returning to the office.

Candid Comment - The HSR Drivers On Strike

    

Like our mayor in Hamilton, many agree with the union's bargaining processes, including going out on strike. Some of the issues on the table the ATU has been discussing are very legitimate. 

• Bathroom breaks.
• Security and safety on the buses due to increased risks of violence by aggressive passengers.  
• Better hours.
• Better pay.

As noted, Anyone can agree that these are legitimate points of interest and should be addressed at the bargaining table.

So what's the beef? It's when the president of ATU 107, Eric Tuck, babbles on about how the members have lost 7% of their buying power due to inflation, making it hard for the drivers to deal with inflation. Welcome to the club. Most Canadians are coping with inflation and a government that continues to allow monopolies to flourish in Canada in key sectors of the economy—food, communications, and banking.  

Reviewing the contract that the union has now is pretty sweet. The drivers get 57K to start and can make as much as 70K plus after a few years of service, which is alright. The city is offering 13% over four years, and the union wants 23%. The drivers also get free rides for life after ten years of service, premiums for working on Sundays, and they can not be laid off due to contracting out. They retain benefits for up to a year when they are laid off. These are a few of the notable things they have in the contract.  

What probably galls most transit riders, or at least many, is the implication by the union that the drivers took severe risks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Really? Healthcare workers, funeral parlor staff, police, and fire, what about them? They surely took risks. As did food service staff and call center staff who could not work from home and went to their centers to handle calls primarily from unhappy and sometimes angry customers. Taxi drivers also faced risks taking people places, as did ambulance staff who transported the sick and dying to the hospital along with the staff inside the hospital who supported doctors and nurses who risked getting. COVID to keep the facilities running and the restaurant staff who went to work to ensure they did not go under and also help feed people. Clergy, social workers, and other key officials in and out of government also provided support during COVID-19. In short, everyone was affected, and many people were doing their jobs in the public space, risking exposure to the disease.

Post-pandemic has not been an easy ride. I want to share a brief synopsis of my own experience. I did work from home but was forced out of my home due to rent issues. My spouse got seriously ill and is still very sick to this day. So, I traveled in transit and lived in an AirBandB while working in my center. Mid-pandemic, I found a roommate and moved in with them. 

Near the end of the pandemic, companies began forcing staff back to the office with no recourse to opt into work from home; it was returned or fired. While true, handling the pandemic risk via work from home was supposed to be a temporary fix during the pandemic. The decisions made by many companies have been arbitrary. Instead of showing compassion and care for the staff, they should have entertained a dialogue about options like working from home but acted like two-year-olds demanding that staff do it their way with no recourse.

Many companies stood firm, come back, or be terminated. Because of this attitude, an increase in distrust has arisen in many workplaces, and bullying has become a serious problem. Instead of trying to fix the problem, some companies have opted to shift the trouble-making leaders into roles that only affect staff a little. Many senior managers and CEOs are not apologizing for their mistakes or making half-hearted attempts to apologize for their errors. They have failed to acknowledge that they allowed or caused pain and suffering to the most essential team members, the front-line staff of their companies. Why can't the companies say sorry to the staff? I can not answer this question, but what we see within companies is also seen in how both parties handling this strike.

In fact, that is what the union and the city are also saying to passengers: it's your problem, not ours. While they quibble about wages, people are left to ride Uber, e-scooters, bikes, walk, and maybe get friends and family to drive them places. No thought about the impact is a consideration. The only thing being done here is digging in heels by both sides, just like with the companies. What is needed here is a sincere apology to the riders and an effort by both sides to find a middle ground. At least, make an effort. Try to do something to fix this and get the buses back on the road again. It is time to stop acting like a bunch of toddlers with temper tantrums and behave like civil adults, and part of that is finding a compromise that works for both parties. Neither side is winning the popularity vote of the public; both the mayor and Mr. Tuck look more like two-year-olds rather than adults. For Hamilton, this is a bad image in an age where we need civility now more than ever. Let's hope civility takes hold so.

The ATU local 107 and city of Hamilton finalized an agreement as of November16 2023 ending the week long strike that saw bus service halted.  As of the 17th transit service resumed.

Candid Comment - Your Hobbies And Sports, Do They Define You?

Do your hobbies and sports define you? I am not a huge sports fan, though I have been following Notre Dame football and the Winnipeg Jets for the past few years. As for hobbies, I am an avid Amateur radio operator; I got my license in 1982 and still use my current call, VA3UCT. On Hamsphere, a virtual HF and VHF radio is where I do most of my operating. I like to read, and I enjoy audiobooks. And I have, along with this blog, begun podcasting and a YouTube channel, mainly a hobby with the hope of eventually making some money at it. All these things are important. But, they do not define me; they do, however, augment my character. Hobbies and sports are good things to be into. And it is not wrong to expand on one's interests.  

As I noted, I recently added YouTube, podcasting, and audiobooks to my list of things I do. The fact that this blog came first proves that people grow through hobbies and sports interests. Candid Conversations has been live since 2010 and shows that I expanded my interest in different parts of my hobbies. The other two interests are just in their first year: 39 YouTube posts and 20 podcast episodes. I started to follow the Fighting Irish with a family member who is really into them, and I mean big time. They got me hooked on college ball. This year, I decided also to follow Ohio State, the Buckeyes as they are known. I began following the Winnipeg Jets in 2018, and this season, I decided also to follow the Seattle Kraken. And where ham radio is concerned, I do not have a full station any longer, so I use Hamsphere to do radio, specifically radio sport, contesting. These things make up who I am but do not define me.  

Win or lose, I still follow the teams I am interested in. And I know that other teams are better than the ones I support, and when they beat my teams, I don't go off on a rant or mock their fans. I do not say things like your team is evil or your team won against us because we let you. I, quite frankly, do the opposite. Why? Because whether my team wins or loses, another ham wins the contest, another podcaster has more listeners, or a Youtuber has more audience than me does not define me. What defines me is the respect I have for their talent. I may be sounding like I am on some high horse. Believe me, I am not. I am disappointed when I lose a post is not liked or do not get a great listener count on the most recent episode of my podcast. I am disappointed when the Jets and Kraken lose, or Notre Dame or the Buckeyes lose. That is natural. But that does not define me. Why? Because I know in my heart of hearts that these are hobbies and sports, and in particular with sports, you do not have control over the winner or the loser. Also, no one team is superior to the other, other than in skill and, yes, also in how much time and money is spent developing the team. The same goes for one's hobbies.  

It is important to remember that sports and hobbies are to be enjoyed. They should never define who you are or be used to divide a community. Yet, oddly enough, they can and do. European football is plagued with violence by fans. However, rude behavior is not limited to football or, as we call it here, soccer. Fans of every sport have people among them who are rude. There is a fine line between passion and rudeness, and no matter the sport or, by the way, the hobby, there are those whose behavior is less than stellar. It gets to the point where no one wants to be near them during game days, and sometimes not at all. That is why I do not let my hobbies and interest in sports define me. Because at the end of the day, I would much rather have fun with the people around me than be uncomfortable because I support a different team or do something different. So, I keep a neutral position, which often means not posting about my favorite team's latest win or sparring with a fan of another team. It's about being an adult and, once again, as I said, knowing I can not control the outcome of the game. Nor can I, and do I allow my other interests to dominate my life. The important things to me matter more than a game or hobby. They are my family, friends and colleagues. So my question again is, do you let yourself be defined by your hobby or sport? If you do, you should look around and ask what is more important, the pursuit or the team or the people around you.  

Candid Comment - Spider Man and Kids TV Back In The Day.

My boss was going on about the new Spider-Man game that is soon to be released, and it got me thinking about the show, its iconic theme, and TV, specifically on a Saturday. During the week, specifically on Saturday, TV shows aimed at children were on all local TV channels. Morning, sometimes during lunch and afternoons after school, and on Saturday, you could and would find programming directed at children. On Saturday, the morning was filled with wall-to-wall TV for children. And on weekday afternoons after school, you might also discover programming aimed at children. 

The general idea, of course, was for toy companies to sell stuff along with toys also came ads for cereals and other items. Remember, TV and radio were invented not to provide programming but as vehicles for ads. That can be said even today. In the 80s, TV changed, and the rise of specialty channels happened. This change ended programming for children on mainstream networks and saw the rise of more adult shows that took their place. The same can be said by the way for game shows. What you get now from networks like CBS, ABC, and NBC are news programs, talk shows, soaps, and other shows that feature judges holding court and tabloid TV and reruns of popular shows. PBS TVO and CBC still have programming for children in the mornings. I do not know about Saturday, but I know there is no programming for children on the other networks. Let me know if I am wrong on this, LOL.

Do I miss Saturday morning cartoons? Nah. I watched TV shows geared to kids, even into my 20s. But, as time passed, my habits and TV watching changed. By the way, I was more of a radio guy. I really liked radio up until the 90s. Saturday morning TV watching today is geared toward getting the latest news updates and moving on to other tasks or managing this blog, podcast, and YouTube channel. I know where to find cartoons and other shows directed to children, but since I do not have kids and rarely see my nieces and nephews, I do not need to dive into the world of kids' TV. I know adults who like cartoons, and that is funny in a good way. But me, meh, no interest on my part, 

So, do you miss seeing a lineup of programs geared to kids? Would you like to see that return, and would you like to see that also on weekday afternoons? Or are you good with the idea of the specialty channels geared to kids? I would like to know. Drop a comment and share your thoughts and memories on the topic. Thanks for reading the blog. I will see you in the next post. 

PS. Remember, I also have a YouTube page featuring comments and interviews.  Candid Conversations Zoomed In and Video Comments is where you will find the latest content.