Archive for October 21st, 2008

Whatever Occupies The Mind

by Dave “Doc” Rogers


The sky is blue. The grass is green. Gravity works.


But for some this is not the case. For some the sky is a cerulean effect of light refraction from a gravimetric hydrogenic mass of particulate matter as it is refracted through the haze we refer to as atmosphere to reflect off of a surface structure of greater density back through the haze to be reflected in minute once again toward the denser surface structure only to be captured within a waiting gulf of absorptive material only to strike against an electromagnetic reactive surface which triggers synaptic responses that run along neural highways to register the video component as a chromatic association. And this combined with atomic masses rotating upon a stellar axis in such coalesced volume as to pull mass into itself rather than toss it away.


To some this is only a physical event.


To some these are emotive happenings that determine the weight of life within their moments.


What determines the relative and associative responses are a historographic cataloguing of similar electromechanical synaptic events resulting in an assumptive historographic response based on an accumulation of data over time with an oft repeated synopsis to the extent it is now believed to be accurate data. Therefore …


The sky is blue, the grass is green, and gravity works.


It is without doubt that whatever occupies the mind rules the heart.


The heart, a tricky little word of multiple meanings, to which I now add the reference to all that is that makes one one. To the Greek rhetoricals this was the ‘psuche,’ the breath of essence that once removed removed that which once was the being within the fleshy structure they called human. It is interesting to note that which is referred as being the essence of being is commonly referred with aspirating words, for with the absence of such aspirations soon follows the lack of further existence for the biological shell. Interesting, isn’t it?


And to think in all our accumulated synapses of collected thought, averages of experiential data, we have yet to define GOD, solve crime, cure the common cold, remove avarice, provide succor to every lack, or to extend our lives beyond that which is enjoyably tenable.


Instead, we spend our days deceptively filling our heads with gibberish in vain attempts at piety, clarity, sentience, and self glorification. “We are who we are,” is said. As if that alone is enough to silence the questions that remain unanswered. Fools, we are, preferring to live a lie than to accept truth.


“Quid est veritas?”


What is truth? It is a very good question. People, in their historographic catalogues of electromechanical similarities, have self determined that truth is whatever they have determined it to be. That, however, is incorrect. Truth is. Truth is what it is. Truth is truth. Truth is not variable. It remains truth.


A circle is a circle. It remains a connected series of points along a line that is closed upon itself. You can argue that it is a circle, a loop, an ellipse, a hoop, a ring, … but you cannot take away its truth. It remains a connected series of points along a line that is closed upon itself. We can safely agree that a circle of 360º divided by a line along a center point creates two arcs of 180º and that another line along a perpendicular center point will create two additional arcs of 180º and the entirety creating four 90º angles through the bi-sectioning of the circle and the overlapping of the diametric center points.


Yet people will argue this insanely. If one circular standard is set at 360º and another set at 400º, an argument will ensue over the circle, its proper definitions, and at what metric should standardization be set. It still does not remove the ‘truth’ that a circle is what it is.


The absence of truth is assumption.


Whether truth is known and overlooked or not known and mental grasping at straws occurs, in the absence of truth … standards whereby solid, evidentiary proof establishes … assumption reigns. It is then argued that there is no truth and therefore assumptive reasoning must evoke an answer to further the courses of action, whatever those might be. Assumptive reasoning relies upon the barest of minimals of evidentiary reasoning or no factually based reasoning at all to grasp out of ether some concept deeply held as truth. It still doesn’t make it truth.


It doesn’t make it truth but it does make it a deeply held belief and an unwillingness to face reality. To them, it has become truth … even if a lie.


If the concept … even a delusional one … is held to firmly and great amounts of mental energy are expended to build up structurally and maintain this concept, it becomes that state of reality for the individual so enervated. They are clouded from the truth by their self preserved delusions. They will function semi normally in society until their dysfunctional truths are confronted or challenged. Then what they have chosen to believe becomes superficial. Some will not meet the challenge. Some will just find another thing about which to be deceived from the truth. Some will argue vehemeously in support of their truth, negating in themselves the truths presented by others or the truth itself. Still, others will be crushed by the confrontation.


The process remains the same.


That which the mind occupies a majority of its time processing results in that thing ruling the heart thereby the actions of the thinker. It is sad that a relatively sane and intelligent person will forego the truth in deference to a lie not based in fact or reality in order to appease some portion of their lives requiring assumptive reasoning.


Whatever occupies the mind rules the heart.


Whatever a person does that dominates their mental faculties will have rule over the core being of that person, and they will find themselves fully receiving the results of efforts … both positive and negative.


Find the truth, not what is truth just to you. Apply yourself to it. Know the truth. Seek it. Treasure it. Focus on it. Because…


Whatever occupies the mind rules the heart.

Read Full Post »

Essays: The Marketing of An American President
by Dave Doc Rogers

It’s 2008 in the Year of our Lord,… unless that offends you then it CE or Common Era instead of Anno Domini, the Year of the Domion of the Lord Jesus, … unless that offends you. You see, I am never quite sure what is PC anymore. I used to think PC meant personal computer, but that’s not PC anymore. Well, to the point then, shall we.

It’s 2008 in the US of A. This means about 1/6th of the population will respond to civic marketing, wait in line, click a button or flip a switch or punch a card, and succumb to the firm belief and hope that they really did know what they were doing when they clicked or toggled or punched. Over 80% of the population will sit idly by and watch. If they are like most of those polled in my extremely unscientific polling process, they really had no clue who or what anyone really stood for. They just ‘believed’ this guy and everyone in that party – ’cause, you know they clicked that ‘all’ button – was it worth the effort to even get up that day? And, that is the state of most Americans at the voting booth, carrel, standee, machine, whatever it is now-a-days.

I have watched with interest 11 elections; which after counting them and writing this kind of makes me feel old. Not too old. I have been alive for only 12. Eleven presidential elections. The big whooptidoo on the television that fills up the prime time slots with news, events, debates, and discussions about what was said at anytime by the candidates for the lofty office of President of the United States of America. Purportedly the most power position in the world … according to news pundits in New York, Atlanta, Chicago, and LA. However, Paris, Moscow, London, Berlin, Beijing, and elsewhere may disagree with that statement. Pasty faced power boys from around the country backed by power brokers and those who want to be. Even fresh faced outsiders are lulled into the game at the promise of becoming a PTB later in life. Those that do not play are not re-elected. Then change, it was the 80s. New promises made that dwindled as a great man also dwindled. The 90s were about lies and a new century about deception and the looking for deceivers. Et tu Brute? In 2008 it is better to bury Caesar than to praise him, defile him too while you are at it, Cassius.

Watching the US news shows lately reminds me of Orwell’s book 1984. Side note, I read it in 1984. Punny, wot? Near the end of the story … I’m not giving anything away here … the television kept repeating the same deception that it always did. Our hero, after being fulling re-introduced into society sits watching the news. He says to himself if they lose just one battle then I will never give in but the next scene is him cheering the victory, a victim of their lies. How like our news today. It is sad to watch really. The psychological indoctrination is so subtle as to go unnoticed unless you are looking for it. CBS News with Katie has a panel of “undecided” voters for a post speech review. Careful screening of the audience allows her to steer the conversation quite well. She deliberates on those that have positive views of one candidate while “tossing” out a question to see if anyone had an opinion on the other candidate. Who is she fooling? Apparently most. I haven’t heard anyone decry such outlandish, one sided journalism. Oh, she did have one person speak on behalf of the other candidate. It was negative. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Let us tell you who to vote for.

A B C … I used to like that network. I mean, American Broadcasting Company. Great name … if you are from America. However, good news reporting and even journalism have gone away to glitz and flash story making. I loved their most recent post debate panel. No one was for one candidate and everyone was for the other. From the news anchor through all of the political “experts” they practically gushed over their favored candidate and lambasted the other. You would nearly think the guy must have been a criminal. Surprise, surprise, when the one candidate receives a lower grade but their favored one … just to make it close … gets a grade overall slightly higher. I mean, who do they think they are fooling when Georgie S, the former guy working in the White House who was given a ‘cush’ job by the pro-Demo party news team, is doing the ‘political’ analysis. Whatever. If you believe that was fair and balanced go downtown Manhattan and play 3 card montie. Your chances are better at getting a fair deal.

Oh … “fair and balanced” news network. They aren’t really. If you gloss to one side or the other then you aren’t fair and you aren’t balanced.

CNN … The news according to Ted Turner. I stopped watching them a long time ago.

I am disappointed at televised news and web news. I stopped reading printed news a l-o-n-g time ago. When you see pictures of one candidate in a darkened picture looking around at waving banners that you can’t read and you see the other candidate standing in front of a podium, slogan clearly visible, smiling fetchingly, right hand pointing outward which happens to be at the other candidate and the slogan talks about ‘change’, it should be obvious this photo was a set up. But no one said anything about that bit of news manipulation. That was on the web at MSNBC until the debate that evening. I went to get a copy of the pic and it had been changed already.

Channel 23 in the TV series Max Headroom was discovered to be advertising via ‘blip-verts’, which they determined later to be bad because certain couch-potato types would explode. They were using their tech to manipulate the audience into buying what they wanted. We go back to Orwell now. They too were controlling a demographic through repetition as if true. If all you hear is one thing and there is no counter to it, then eventually you can program someone, several someones, to believe whatever it is you want them to believe. Karl Marx said as much in regards to the youth of a nation.

I have no doubts that, like Lincoln, Obama began with good intentions a political journey. But, Obama will find that he owes so many so much for deals done for him that he will not be able to accomplish anything should he obtain the needed electoral votes. It won’t necessarily be the will of the people or even the masses. It will have been by the very slick and subversive marketing of the controllers of the information highway.

WR Hearst had no idea, my opinion, what he had wrought when he went about journalism with a new approach, sensationalism. It sold. It also fomented. Mock journalism became accepted over literary truth. Then others discovered that if you controlled the information highway you controlled the minds of a populous. With great affinity Hitler, Lenin, Mao, and Mussolini converted the masses to their way of thought. The frog was slowly boiled. I’ll explain that later. To great detriment to those societies did the infusion of “their” thought overcome the thinking of the individual, and the individual was replaced by the masses and their puppet masters. Oh to play god and not be!

The marketing of an American President is an insidious process. First, you have to manufacture a candidate. He has to be a certain heroic mix. He has to come from power or subservient to it. He has to understand it, to have tasted it. He has to be of a certain educational background, the “best” schools. He has to be sponsored, “mentored” in the “right” direction. He has to be flawed but not too greatly. He has to be trained to conduct himself so as to be seen correctly in the correct way in the correct environments. He will get a publicist. He has to be seen with the right people doing just enough to keep being seen with the right people. His speeches are tailored and well timed for maximum impact. He is well coached and well rehearsed. He is photogenic. It helps to have your own photographers taking shots you want taken. He is trained to comport himself well under pressure. He appears calmly assured, “presidential.”

In print, in press, in electronic media, in stills, he is presented in the best lights and backgrounds for his complexion, ethnicity, and agenda. In moving media, he is always presented in calm, presidential assurance speaking clearly and on topic. Comparative media, he is always presented in bright surroundings and candid joy. His opponents are in dark, disturbing, or awkward environments with facial expressions that run the gamut of emotions as long as they express a negative countenance.

Those with the power to do so, controllers of the information highways, steer oh so subtly, the minds, hearts, and emotions away from those things they do not like toward those things they want the numbed populous to see. It is the art of Copperfield and Houdini. Get them to look at what you want them to see while they are doing something else you do not want them to see. And, it is more insidious than that. There are some out there who fully believe they can do what they do because they can and there is no one who sees it or empowered to stop it. It all has plausible deniability. “I didn’t know that was going on, Mr. Chairman.” “I have no knowledge of that, Mr. Chairman.” The info highway loves that stuff. It’s less than 5 seconds and can be repeated easily on the web or in 15 second new highlight commercials.

So, unless honest media returns to the USA and otherwise intelligent Americans become benumbed by all of the subliminal imagery and messaging, #44 can only be Obama.

US citizenry will not have participated in an election of one who is to preside over the executive branch of the US government. No, the US citizenry will have fallen prey to mass media experimentation in mass population thought control, and it will have worked.

Now, as to who is better? McCain or Obama [sorted alphabetically and not preferentially]. I do not know and would not say so here.

McCain will fight and lose to a Congress that is entrenched along party lines and will not work with him because he is old, may die in office, will put her in office, is McCain the maverick, and 500 other reasons that require asking MCs and Senators for their ‘real’ opinion… not gonna happen. Internationally, he will be stymied and nothing will be accomplished. It might as well have been Wilson and Roosevelt pre-WWII for all of his effectiveness.

Obama will be tauted as a hero of Civil Rights in action right up to the point he starts thinking for himself instead of those who put him there. Then he will serve 4 years and is heard of no more. If he repays those who put him in his place then he will have 3 years of glory, 3 years of easy appointments, especially judges that are friendly to certain causes and bulwarks against others, even if it is legislation from the bench. The people will not matter. Internationally, everyone who is anyone or wants to be seen as ‘anyone’ will clamor to talk to this ‘golden anointed’ son of America. What looks good for prime time info highway will not be reality however. More will be harmed than helped. Military exacerbations will rise to the point of war and the next POTUS will have to throw his or her arms up in the air in … frustration or prayer … they won’t say which.

In my years of selling and working with and observing marketing, sometimes the hyped expectation doesn’t live up to the reality of ownership. They [MCs] won’t impeach because of the institution it represents, so which ever choice you end up with … ensure you sought out real information to support your 1:300,000,000 vote. Because if you do not know what you are doing those in power will only be too glad to ensure you do what they want you to do. Done.

Read Full Post »

Essays: Word of Warning!


A word of warning. I have decided to give my opinion on things in short essay format. I am opinionated. Sorry.


As I have aged, I have discovered more and more that everyone around me is willing to share their opinions on whatever seems most important to them at the time. I must have a bartender’s face, or the parish priest’s, because people often tell me what they are thinking. I was a bartender. I did hear a lot of alcohol induced soul disgorgement. You smile and nod. You fill their drink when they are ready. You become their buddy for an afternoon or evening. They move on. You remain there. It was an interesting life. I was never a parish priest. Although, I did study for the ministry. But, that is a different story all together.


The odd thing about my face and people’s opinions is they never want to hear mine. I have learned to recognize it when it starts to happen. “So, what do you think?” I open my mouth to speak, say a few words, the glaze crosses their eyes, they start thinking of the next thought while I speak, then I close my mouth. My words forgotten in the next round of whatever synapses were brought to the forefront and their mouth engaged in the middle of my point. My opinion forgotten. As a bartender, I silently listened, nodded, and poured more drinks. As a citizen of this world, it grated at me that I could never say what was on my mind. I do it so much better in written form, in any event.


I am in management. So, whether they like it or not – mostly not, they have to listen to my perspective on the doctrine that was handed down to me. I sell it as my own. Some complain about that. In reality, it is the filtered official content from an idea or open monologue by the owner or CEO or someone near those that becomes my dogma to disburse among the front lines. The only thing that differs is my spin on it. I hit all of the salient points. Reiterate the key ones, just as taught in college and all those public speakers I have studied. Then, that look occurs. You know it. It is the one that parents get from teenagers. It is the one teachers get from students. I gave it often enough to recognize it when the favor is returned to me. And, in one proverbial ‘in one ear and out the other’ goes everything I just said. I use feedback questions to ensure they are still alive. “Fair enough?” “Does that make sense to you?” “Do you think you can take this and run with it?” If it did not potentially cost them their jobs, I know they would be asleep. In fact, some have to the amusement of the rest.


I guess what I am saying is my tank is full. And out of the great library stored between my ears will come a diatribe on various, seemingly, non-related “stuff.” They all seem to be important to me, if no one else. Maybe you, the reader, will gain something from my perspective on ‘life, the universe, and everything’ (which is a good book by Douglas Adams, funny too). Maybe you won’t gain anything. I am not so narcissistic to believe everyone will faun over my words as sweet honey dripping from the cone… which is good! Have you had fresh from the bees’ honey? Good stuff! Back to point… With a tank full of points and opinions to be made, I thought I should make some.


I have been reading a lot of writers of late. Some are good. Some need work. Some I do not understand. Some have a lot of potential. And, sadly, some will get no further than they are because of what I call the ‘Rogers Slant on the Peter Principle.’ I will get to that later. There is a common theme in all of the writing that I have observed. They are all opinionated. Mine included. Fair enough AND there is nothing wrong with it either. And, I have made the observation that I have been “holding back” so as not to offend anyone. Personally, I do not like the seagull style of making your presence known. You do not know what I mean by this? It is simple if you have been anywhere around seagulls for any length of time. First, they are loud. Then, they are persistent. They go around squealing and squawking to provoke others to give them their way. I even had one puff up his feathers to make himself look bigger. I was threatened by a seagull!?! Being several multiples larger than the seagull, I showed him who really was the predator. No, I did not kill it. I could not get close enough. But, he left me alone to my lunch after that. But, I have met people who are like that. Seagulls. Loud. Obnoxious. My way is the only way. It’s all about me. And, like seagulls, they fly around, squawk around, do what seagulls do, then leave… because they are not “appreciated.” Ehhhhh.


Now, not all are like that. Certainly. No there are quite more than a few that are nice, dare I say wonderful. The kind that you wouldn’t mind socializing with if they lived closer. And, it is about the work and not the “appreciation.” Appreciation is nice, but if the emperor is naked and says he is wearing the finest new attire made of threads so exquisite that they cannot be seen by the naked eye… Well, I have to fight the really strong desire to remind him he’s just ‘nekked.’ (Southern US slang for naked, nude) My mother was very honest. Most of the time she wouldn’t hold back and would say nekked is nekked. No, not all that I have met and read have struck me as self-centric. Some of them are good and to read replies back, it is as if they do not believe they are that good or just cannot take a compliment. Refreshing, actually. I have been in many groups, forums, and the like. Those wonderful people are the reason that keeps me coming back. Thank you, publicly, to all those folks! [Author’s shameless plug for all my friends at writerscafe.org]


And, to those I am surely to offend, just remember Jesus was quoted as saying, “Offenses come.” I remember working at a restaurant as a waiter. The bartender was one of those people who said whatever was on his mind. He never seemed to hold back while I knew him. I do not even really remember what sparked the conversation and his response to it, but he said “G.D. something, something, something.” One of the other waiters said, pointing at me, he’s a Christian. Remember this guy just said whatever comes to mind. So he fires at me but not to me, “So, am I going to offend him.” Not looking up from what I was doing, I retorted calmly, “Jesus said, ‘Offenses come.’”


“So, what am I gonna burn in hell now?”


“No, that’s optional and it is purely up to you.”


That ended the conversation. I still think that story is funny. Especially, since I lived it.


No. I know that when I throw out my opinion that there will be those who think I am crazy, stuck on myself, someone died and left me god, words to that effect, blah, blah, blah. In reality, I have heard them all before. But, turn about is fair play. If I withhold my tongue (pen, keyboard, whatever) and do not lambaste the opinions of others… no matter how ridiculous they may seem… then that same respect should be accorded to others, like me for instance.


Open discussion? Sure I am open to reasonable discussion and debate on any of these issues. I am just expressing my opinion, my perspective, my point of view. If it differs from yours and we cannot see eye-to-eye on the matter, then let us kindly agree-to-disagree. Which is something all reasonably intelligent people should be able to do. Wot?


So, this is my word of warning. Essays, rants, spoken word diatribes, are about to commence without apology, without remorse, without lament. Those of you brave enough to read this far and beyond will hopefully discover something of use from the various topics discussed. And, maybe gain something from another’s perspective.


I thought you should know before I did it. J







The Rogers’ Slant to the Peter Principle


The Peter Principle, in basic, states a person will get promoted to their highest level of incompetence. Which means, they did well at this level, so certainly they will do well at the next level up. And, that continues until the person struggles with incompetence in the position they now hold. Which makes those that placed them there feel both good and bad.


Bad: The incompetent person’s performance reflects poorly on the person who put them there in the first place.


Good: It is called the “I’m better” syndrome. Since my position is superior to your position and I have it, you do not, that makes me superior to you. It is another form of bullying for grown ups.


The Rogers’ Slant is simply this. Once attaining to your highest level of incompetence, you are faced with two choices; well, three choices.

  1. Stay until you are fired for incompetence.
  2. Take a step down back to the level where you were not incompetent.
  3. Do that which is uncomfortable and learn how to excel at the level you now find yourself.


Point 3 is the ticket that is rarely punched. One of the things I have discovered in 30+ years of working is your education for the job does not really matter. “What???” All the college grads say. For this reason, you will not really understand what it takes to do the job until you do the job. I am purported to be well educated, well studied. That ‘well studied’ state came from each position I kept finding myself promoted into. At first, I floundered terribly. Then I went to the Lincoln School of Advanced Studies. What and where is that? I am glad you asked.


The Lincoln School of Advanced Studies is my name for what Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the USA, did to get educated. He borrowed books. Read, studied, analyzed them. He famously split rails and other odd jobs to borrow or buy books. He applied himself to know, in spite of his economic condition. Black smith or lawyer? In the early 1800’s in the US, either profession would keep you in work for the rest of your life, if you were good at it. Mr. Lincoln opted for law and the rest is history.


The Peter Principle is applicable in other areas of life rather than just economics of business. The Rogers’ Slant to the Peter Principle defines a truth: People will advance in ability just as far as they are willing to do that which is difficult.


If a person decides they have had enough and are satisfied where they are, they cannot be moved unless forcibly made to do so. The state of satisfaction comes from their unwillingness to do what it takes to go beyond where they are. My mother was want to remind her children that my father’s career in the US Navy and his promotions therein were due to her “insistence.” That’s a nice way of putting it, isn’t it? My father in his youth was a man of desires and action. He did what he wanted to do until reality caught up to him through seven children, a house, and a slew of family pets.  He then became quite dedicated to his responsibilities. He did, too many times, that which was uncomfortable to achieve his goal: raise seven kids.


I became involved in multi-level marketing several times. Each time was before I came across this slant to the principle. One of the really interesting things I discovered was MLN’s are excellent for sales training. They are also good for learning human dynamics. In this case, one gentlemen who had retired from one career and worked with the MLN to have something to do. He became moderately successful because he only needed so much additional income to be satisfied. One of the things he would do to motivate his team was to ‘dream build.’ By that, he would take the team members to places to show them what they could possible own, if they were willing to work hard for it. In one of these field trips, the sales associate pointed out something rather interesting. He pointed out that the gentleman would periodically bring people by to “dream build” but no one ever came back to buy. Why was that? I thought it a good question too, so I asked the gentleman too. He said the answer was simple. They did not have the “want to.” Then he explained.


The “want to” was the desire to do what it takes to get what you want. For some of these people, that “want to” was not a Ferrari. For most people that “want to” never materialized. They lacked the desire to go beyond the uncomfortable. Then some do succeed, but their “want to” was not big enough. They got comfortable where they were. Then there were others. They seem to be the few, the lucky few. Luck had nothing to do with it. To quote another gentleman in MLN, “If their ‘want to’ is big enough, they can do anything.”


And, that is where we come full circle. In the Peter Principle, it is supposed that the person will raise in responsibility until they reach failure. In the Rogers’ Slant, people who succeed even though they initially lack the education or ability do that which is uncomfortable. They do that extra bit, no matter the difficulty, to ensure they succeed. An example of this is a man who started out in MLN business in the 1960’s. He was a truck driver making less than $100 per week. He did that which was impossible. He continued that until he became one of the richest men in MLN history. Now, will everyone be that successful? No. His “want to” was huge. It drove him. The same is true of Gates and Murdoch. They went beyond their inabilities to persist until successful.


To succeed in anything, successful people identify where they are weak. They identify what is needed. Then, they persist in training themselves, in doing what is required to succeed. They drive themselves toward that ideal of success for them. There are those whose ideal is billion dollar business, the pinnacles of politics or industry or fame, or a 2/2/2 in the suburbs with the kids and pets. The individual must identify for themselves what is their definition of success. The individual must identify for themselves what is their “want to;” what are they willing to do or not do to reach their definition of success. Once defined, the individual must maintain a sure hold on the “want to,” the ideal, their vision of where they see themselves. After that, it is easy. Right?

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: