"People of Earth, I come in peace," he said sarcastically.  His derision was directed toward the religious fanatics before him, bickering over the stupidest little things.  Couldn't they see they all had so much more in common than they had differences?  Freud's "Narcissism of small differences" paraphrasing of Crawley was right.  Why do people focus on those small differences?  They need to fight about things.  It's probably misplaced/displaced anger over feelings of loss of control ... at work, home and elsewhere?  How do people regain that control, that "empowerment?"  They should stop blindly accepting the "authority" of their "bosses" at home and work and elsewhere.  They should practice being "their own man/woman."  It will irritate the Hell out of those they've been obedient to all this time, but that's just too bad for those "leaders."

Maybe it all goes along with my other thoughts on "leadership."  The problem with leadership is that it requires followers.  And we all know what a bunch of idiots "followers" can be.  I don't believe in leadership, at least not in its most common forms.  I do, however, strongly believe in guidance.

Everyone knows that.  But what can you do?  You have to work with them.  So you try and ignore their assholeness as much as possible.  Hell, you might even look for the good in them.  There must be some good in them, right?  You hope so, anyway.

A business plan requiring constant expansion is, almost by definition, a cancer, and equally unhealthy.

When I applied and scheduled an interview for a job at the "financial arm" of the Methodist Church, I knew I was not a right fit for them. After all, I'm not only not Methodist, I'm not even a Christian. When the HR manager called a couple days later to cancel the interview, I had a strong suspicion her excuse was concocted. I'm sure the conversation behind the scenes went something like this:

"When I asked him how he would feel about working in an environment where a prayer is said before and after every meeting, and people have been known to bring a Bible with them, his answer was, 'I'm not a religious person, but I have no problem with other people practicing their religion ... as long as they're not hurting me.'"

Her boss probably said something sarcastic, like, "How very big of him! But seriously, he's not a good fit here. Let's make up an excuse not to interview him."

"We have to be careful. There are laws against religious discrimination."

"Right, right. Tell him the position has been filled. That always works."

"I know, I'll just tell him the truth without actually saying it. I'll say, 'We've already got Christian applicants scheduled for interviews who are a better fit for us.'  I just won't say 'Christian' out loud."  At which point, I'm sure they shared a laugh.

And that's what she told me when she called. Her premise was that there was a "scheduling conflict." Only four interview slots were available. As if you can't simply move things around and squeeze in a twenty minute interview?  Hell, I've had plenty of much shorter interviews.

No problem. I wasn't thrilled about working for a bunch of religious fanatics, anyway. :)