Thinking Out Loud, Volume DXXX

"Okay, so I made a bad decision and I regret it, but you have to understand....I was mad at the time." Notice I have that statement in quotation marks, but I didn't list the person's name who said it. Well, it was me. And chances are, you have made the same kind of statement in the past as well. One hard lesson I've learned is not to make rash decisions during periods when my emotions are running high. As a general rule, I'm a fairly low key guy, and I usually am able to keep my temper in check, even though on the inside I may be seething and want to completely walk away from some people forever. I assure you, though, if I did that every time I was tempted to do so while in a state of anger, my friend list would be much smaller today....and it would be all my fault for making a regrettable decision during a time when I didn't need to be making decisions. The only decision that should be made at such a time is the decision to put off making decisions until I've had a chance to cool down. Yes, on rare occasions, my best bet might be to walk away and put my relationship with that person completely in my past, but that decision would need to be based on a consistent pattern of behavior and not on a one time occurrence. As I think about this topic, I have to wonder how many times I've angered a friend, and at that moment, that person wanted to be completely done with me. Thankfully, on most occasions, those people have waited until their emotions were calmer before writing me off. Here's the kicker: It's not just in times of anger when we need to make sure we put off making big decisions. I remember when I was a youth, a man who was a friend of my parents told me about a time when he met a gorgeous young woman and fell head over heels in love with her instantly. They decided to go get married immediately. Each of them called a friend who could serve as best man and maid of honor, and they headed toward a meeting with the Justice of the Peace. Suddenly a severe storm blew in, making travel practically impossible, so they decided to put off their wedding till the next weekend. By that time, both of their emotions had cooled down, resulting in another postponement of the nuptials. That was many years ago, and the two of them have never even seen each other since. If their love affair was so shallow they never even bothered to call each other to discuss their wedding, thank God for the storm that slowed them down until cooler heads prevailed. There are good, well intentioned people who will play on our emotions when they want us to donate money, or obligate ourselves to a monthly pledge for a cause they are promoting. It's good to do that. I give to charitable causes, but I still believe we should wait until we are not caught up in the emotion of the moment before making that decision so we can choose how much we want to donate based on logic rather than on emotions. My main point is when we are caught up in the emotion, any kind of emotion, of the moment, it may not be the best time to make decisions that will have long term consequences for our lives or the lives of the people we care about. The fact of the matter is the effects of our decisions will continue to be with us long after the emotions of the moment have passed. I remember hearing a man tell me, "You may one day meet a girl who is so pretty you will want to eat her up, and then after you marry her, you will wish you would have." Preston

Thinking Out Loud, Volume DXXIX

A nation divided. A home divided. Can either survive? At a cemetery, a crowd has gathered for a somber occasion, hoping to hear something that will bring them some peace of mind. It's about 3:00 pm and the slight hum of soft conversation becomes silent as a man by the name of Edward Everett steps to the podium and for two solid hours delivers a rousing 13,000 word speech that is well received by by practically everyone in attendance; and he's just the first speaker. The next one to speak is a man of significant importance. In a mere ten sentences he addresses the question that is on everyone's mind: "Can we as a nation withstand such division and hatred?" Things aren't going well at home. There's tension between Mom and Dad. They're putting on a front when the kids are watching, but in the darkness of the night, behind closed doors, there's mostly silence. Each one of them believes the other one has fallen out of love, when the truth is they are both deeply in love, and the pain each one is feeling is very real. The nation I'm speaking of is yours and mine, and that event took place almost 153 years ago as President Abraham Lincoln followed a well received two hour speech with ten sentences that even to this day many students have to memorize. It's known as "The Gettysburg Address" and it came about during a time when our citizens were killing each other, even to the point that it pitted brother against brother. Never before or since has our country been so divided. The home I'm talking about is yours and yes, even mine. I have to admit that early in our marriage we went through a period when we weren't sure whether or not we would make it, and if you've been married any length of time, you can likely recall those same kinds of situations in your own home. Here's the truth: More than a century and a half after President Lincoln uttered those immortal words in a Gettysburg cemetery that afternoon, we're still standing, even through all the government corruption that followed "Honest Abe's" term in office. Here's another truth: In just a few short weeks, Angie and I will be celebrating our 44th wedding anniversary, and we're more in love now than we've ever been. President Lincoln addressed the question of "whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure." Can we endure? Well, here we are. Just look at us! One hundred fifty-three years after that famous speech and two hundred forty years after our inception, I think we can. Can my home endure? Well, after forty-four years of marriage, we're still going strong! As I type this, under my breath I'm singing the words to a song by Elton John: "I'm still standing better than I ever did. Looking like a true survivor, feeling like a little kid." Preston

Thinking Out Loud, Volume DXXVIII

Every gentleman is a man, but not every man is a gentleman. Every lady is a woman, but not every woman is a lady. The good thing about it is, the rules for qualifying to be a lady or gentleman allow for mistakes, as long as the attitude and intentions are pure. What are some of those rules? I think the primary thing that has to be considered is how we treat other people. Is it always "my way or the highway?" Do we demand respect while failing to show others the same kind of respect we want shown to us? Are we tolerant of the mistakes made by our peers? A lady or a gentleman will not take advantage of someone else's weaknesses and vulnerabilities. Being a lady or gentleman doesn't just happen automatically...it has to be taught and learned. In most cases when we see a lady or a gentleman, we can point to some good parents who put forth the time and effort to create ladies and gentlemen out of their offspring. A few days ago my wife mentioned one of my best friends, and in my opinion, gave him a tremendous compliment when she said, "He is a gentleman." The event that put my mind on this topic happened just a few weeks ago. At a work related function, I met two young women the same day, and fortunately, they both qualify to be called ladies. One of the standards good parents try to instill into their kids is respect for their elders, and since I am quite a bit older than either of those ladies, I sensed that both of them respected me. It's just that they did it differently. Obviously among everyone who reads this post, there will be varying opinions as to which way is best, and while I'm not here to say one way is right and the other is wrong, I will explain which way I like best and why. Maybe the ten year age difference between the two ladies explains the difference in the way they showed their respect toward me, or maybe it's just a difference in their personalities. The younger of the two always put the word "Mister" before my name, and she answered my questions with "yes sir" and "no sir." The other young lady was less formal, yet there was just something about our conversations that made me feel respected. (I hope both of them could also sense the respect I have for them.) While my dialogue with the first one was more formal, the conversations with the second one were more comfortable. Okay, let me just be brutally honest. We teach our kids to respect their elders by using terms like "Mister" and "Sir," and I believe that's a good thing. It's a part of guiding them to the path of becoming ladies and gentlemen, but I have to tell you, I don't really want every younger adult I meet to call me by those titles. I prefer a friendship that is LESS formal and MORE relaxed. I honestly do appreciate the respect shown to me by the one lady, but I really feel more at ease with the other one. As an illustration of what I mean, let me give you an example of two ministers I know and the type of prayers they give when they are asked to pray publicly. The best way I know how to describe it is one of them puts on his "praying voice" and prays a beautiful, yet formal prayer, while the other one sounds like he is talking to his best friend. Yes, we have the example to follow in "The Lord's Prayer," but I also have to believe that sometimes God prefers casual conversations with us as his children and his friends. When it was time to leave that event, I left feeling richer due to the fact that I had made new friends. However, the truth of the matter is that four months from now I will have forgotten one of the lady's names, and she won't remember mine. The other one is a friendship that will last, and I'll bet you know which one it is....and why. Preston

Thinking Out Loud, Volume DXXVII

I don't remember much about the lady who checked me in to the Holiday Inn; not that she wasn't attractive, but it's just that the other woman behind the desk was so stunningly beautiful I couldn't take my eyes off her. No, I'm not a dirty old man, and it's not that I'm not accustomed to seeing beautiful women. In fact, I'm married to one that I want to keep, so I'm certainly not on the prowl, especially for one young enough to be my granddaughter. It's just that this one was so......so...DIFFERENT...from any others I've seen in a long, long time. She was probably in her early twenties, modestly dressed, yet there was something about her clothes, her glasses, and her hair that looked so strangely familiar, but I just couldn't identify it. What WAS it? About forty-five minutes later I was in my room, at work on my computer, when the perfect word to describe her appearance suddenly popped into my head.....SIXTIES!!! She looked like the 1960s!! After that sudden revelation, the first question that came to my mind was, "Are the sixties coming back?" I graduated high school in 1969, so that was the decade of most of my teenage years. That's what I found so attractive about that young lady. I'm fully aware that fashions for apparel and hair are cyclical, but the thing that worries me about that is I wonder if the attitudes and moral standards of those eras accompany the fashion trends. It seems to me that morality peaked in the fifties, and then took a nosedive in the sixties. If you want to pick out TV shows you can feel comfortable letting your kids watch, you can choose just about anything from the fifties without fear of any improper language, sexual themes, or subliminal messages. "I Love Lucy" and "Leave it to Beaver" are safe. The sixties brought us the hippie movement, while many of our college campuses experienced riots and social unrest. The sixties introduced us to free love and hallucinating drugs. As much as I dislike all those things I just described, I must also mention an attitude that was prevalent in that decade, and as much as I hate to admit it, I believe I can see it coming back. I call it by one word: Mediocrity. It concerns me when I see college students literally by the millions supporting a man who preaches a message that ridicules exceptionalism and praises mediocrity. He says you shouldn't have to work your way through college, because you deserve to have a government that will supply all your needs. It's an attitude that says we should all be cookie cutter citizens with all of us being equal, and if someone does work hard and gets ahead, we will take his excess earnings and divide them among those who don't. Let me pause here to say that, as a product of the sixties, I never was never a hippie, I never did drugs, and I worked hard to get myself through college. The reason I'm saying this is to make sure you understand that I'm not lumping everyone from the decade of the sixties into the same category, nor am I putting everyone from today's generation into the same boat. I also know that not everyone in the fifties had high moral standards. I'm talking about general attitudes of an era. In a recent phone conversation with my daughter, who regularly goes to the gym to work out, she told me that the people who are working out hardest are in their mid thirties and older. As I was saying earlier, the fifties was a decade of higher moral standards and more conservative thought patterns, a direct contrast from the "Roaring Twenties," which came into being during the socialistic era of Woodrow Wilson. The Fifties was the more conservative decade of the Eisenhower years. The sixties were the more liberal years of Kennedy and Johnson. Moral standards made a noticeable rebound in the eighties, the decade of Reagan. I know that our political attitudes in this country work like a pendulum, swinging back and forth, so here are my questions: Do our leaders guide us back onto the path of higher morality, or vice versa, or do we elect certain leaders to match changes in our attitudes? Do our styles of fashion go hand in hand with our political attitudes? Is work ethic cyclical? Are mediocrity and exceptionalism generational? One thing for sure, whatever situation we're facing today, it will change. Are the sixties returning? Probably so, and that, like all eras, will have a mixture of both good and bad. Whatever we face, we'll get past it just like we did before, and one thing will make it all worthwhile....Our girls sure are pretty!' Preston

Thinking Out Loud, Volume DXXVI

There's just something that makes me feel good when people remember my name. People love to hear their own names, so it's important when we meet someone new, we should make every effort to remember his/her name. It seems like here lately I've been introduced to so many people in a short period of time, I'm having a hard time remembering all their names, and it makes me feel bad, so if you see me take a quick look at your name badge and then your face, please understand I'm working on connecting the two so it will be easier for me to remember it next time. There are some people, however, who know my name well, yet rarely use it, and I have to admit, I like it that way. For instance, two of the ones who know me best call me "Dad." I prefer they call me Dad instead of my name. My grandkids call me Poppa, and even a few of my good friends call me "Poppa P," while there are still others from my inner circle of friends who simply refer to me as "P." Yes, I like that, too. Terms like "Dad" and "Poppa" are not names; they are titles, or terms of endearment. When we stop to think about it, we realize that sometimes our titles say more about us than our names. Here are some examples of what I mean. If you're a football fan, you may be familiar with the name "Mean Joe Greene." His mom didn't name him "Mean." Other people gave him that title to describe the intensity with which he played the game. It's actually a term of respect. In the 80s movie, "Dragnet," there was a character who was referred to as "The Virgin Connie Swail." That title gives us a better description of her than just her name could ever give. Abraham Lincoln was often called "Honest Abe." Terms like that are given by other people to describe a pattern of behavior by the person wearing that title. It doesn't have the same effect when a person gives himself that title. In fact, if a man opens a used car lot and calls it "Honest Al's," it makes me a little suspicious of Ole Al. Occasionally, people are given titles as a sign of disrespect. Donald Trump seems to be a master at it, with names like "Lying Ted," and "Crooked Hillary." He is insinuating a pattern of behavior which may or may not be deserved. There's one person, however, who has been wearing a disrespectful title down through the centuries, and I doubt any of us know for sure whether it accurately depicts a pattern of behavior, because to be honest, he was given his title due to one mistake. I'm referring to a man known as "Doubting Thomas." Judging by the company he kept and the position he held, I get the opinion that he must've been a pretty good guy, yet the title he wears gives us a negative impression of him. I'm not sure he deserves to have a title that has given him a bad reputation down through history. How unfortunate it would be for any of us to have to walk in his shoes. I certainly hope my identity is not based on a single error of judgment. There's a big difference between a one time mistake and a pattern of behavior, or lifestyle, yet how many times have we seen someone else mess up, and that one infraction causes us to make that a part of that person's identity. Yes, I've been guilty, and yes, I've also been guilty of being a little skeptical of stories that seem hard to believe, but please don't start calling me "Doubting Preston." All of us should offer the same kind of grace we've been offered. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Preston