Foremost on my Mind: Wash Your Hands

Every now and then, things hit me in a certain way, striking me as strange and intriguing. To the normal peon of the planet, this may not be an issue, but to some of us...

Come with me--figuratively, of course—to the bathrooms of many of our famous stores and restaurants. There is a sign by the door of so many, I've lost count. Today's column, then, is exploring the wonder of why employers must tell their employees to wash their hands.

This deserves a simple question: Why? Believe me, I think they should (and so do their mothers, for that matter)—and so should you, after using the, ahem, facilities—so my question is simply, Why do they have to be told to?

I tend to be a teensy-weensy jaded when it comes to these sorts of things, so I have a couple of reasons why staff is being reminded to do something they should be doing normally: One, the sign is there to impress the customer; and two, that particular business tends to hire staff who are short in the hygiene department. While I hope I'm wrong, I believe I'm right.

In the former reason, if the store needs to remind the staff to wash their hands, why not remind them to flush the toilet, to pick up after themselves, to brush their teeth, and...well, you get the picture. If they need to be reminded about basic life skills—and heavy on the if—why not post that notice in the staff bathroom, as opposed to the public one? Private matters should stay in private places.

The irony is not lost here: If you think I am dealing with a private matter in a public place (newspaper column), what do you think a private sign in a public restroom is?

While I firmly believe washing one's hands after you-know-what, I think the state of the kitchens of some our restaurants, and the type of food we're eating when we go there, is a far bigger issue. If I have access to staff memos regarding washing hands, shouldn't I have access to where the food is prepped and how the kitchen is maintained?

That's a natural segue (look that up in your Funk and Wagnalls) to the other possible reason why the sign is posted in the bathroom. Do you think I feel confidant that I am being served by a staff member who has such limited hygiene sense that he needs to be reminded to wash his hands? (It could also be a “she,” Maurice, but I generally don't read signs in ladies' bathrooms.)

Now, not to attempt to sound too intellectual (that could get me charged with impersonating a brainiac), but isn't the message that the employers are sending actually working against them? In other words, the employer may be trying to impress the public with their high standards for personal cleanliness, when, in fact, they are depressing the public with low standards of personal habits.

If I drop my money in a store where the staff has to be reminded to clean up after, well, you know what, I don't know if I want to shop there.

There's an mischievous side of me that wants to ask each clerk, each teller, each stock boy, “Have you washed your hands today?” That would go over well, wouldn't it? That's up there with asking each female clerk her age and weight, each male clerk about his IQ, each worker his or her marital status.

Reminding the customer that it is in the best interest of all concerned that he or she washes his or her hands makes sense to me. A lot of unnecessary diseases are transmitted through dirty hands. I just draw the line when it comes to staff notices in non-staff places.

I have a reasonable solution. Post a wash-your-hands sign in the public bathroom, but state the following: “Our staff maintains the highest personal hygiene possible.” That would make me feel better all around.

I might even shake their hand to congratulate them.

Foremost on my Mind: Good Money After Bad

I am not an economist, nor the son of an economist, but I think I have had a few successes when it comes to money. Every large item I possess, I own outright: cars, house, equipment; and I have neither bank loan nor mortgage--just a little line of credit that rears its ugly head at me every now and then.

And I have done that based on one salary (ie., one full-time working—no, make that one full-time paid working--parent), with nine young 'uns over the years. Over that time, we have hung out at Value Village, Salvation Army, and the WTS Store (see column #157 for an interpretation). Not the latest or greatest in anything, but we have done well enough, thank you very much.

I have often distinguished my money principles from my wife's as follows: She's frugal, I'm shrewd. The difference? She is very careful with what we do have; too careful, sometimes, if you ask me, but I'm not going to air our dirty laundry (though not to be confused with laundered money). My shrewdness shows up when it comes to what we don't have, but need to have. I am able to sniff out deals that even shock me.

You ought to see the deal I got on screen doors for submarines...

So, good money management is up in the top four of what makes a successful marriage—compromise, communication, and intimacy, being the other three, and probably in that order. (Funny, when you're younger, the order is reversed.)

Like you, we have worked hard to earn and keep our money; and like you, we have wondered what the government does with all the money it collects. It's a crazy world, because the money is ours in the first place; then it's taken by the government through a gazillion taxes. That would make the takers givers and the givers takers, wouldn't it? That would also mean that the government is using money that wasn't theirs in the first place to dictate its allocation to those whose money it was in the first place. (You think that was hard to read? Try writing it.)

All the more reason for the givers-cum-takers to have some say in how it is spent.

Let's move on to bigger and better things, for a moment—say, in how we send money overseas to foreign countries. I wonder if anyone has any idea how much money Canada sends overseas to third-world countries in the form of foreign aid. Times that by ten, and you likely have the amount that the USA sends overseas. Either way, as a taxpayer, I wouldn't mind having a little say in how it's spent.

If the amount itself isn't staggering enough, the complete lack of accountability and control is. Compound the problem with the desperate need for the giver to get its own house in order, and you'll see where I'm going with this. The US of A is in very, very tough shape, yet continues to throw money away to foreign countries. Foreign countries (takers), I may add, that have a really bad attitude the the USA (giver).

I have an assignment for you, and you, and you over there: Check out what countries are getting foreign aid from the Bank of Obama, and see if any of them rhyme with Yemen, Libya, and Egypt. Then examine what sort of checks (not cheques) and balances are in place for the proper distribution of all that unaccounted (and unearned) wealth.

Three things come to mind, without leaving your armchair: The money is going to enemies of America; it is not reaching the common people; and there is no plan to re-examine such a disgusting waste of taxpayers' dollars.

The same could be said of Canada, no doubt, but on a lesser scale. The reason I cite the US of A, is because—surprise, surprise—the recent spate of uprisings, murders, and anarchy directed at America, has come from countries that have been supported, under-written, and in fact, advanced by the same “devil” (their term, not mine).

Remember the story of the golden goose? It (the giver) kept on producing golden eggs until greed and curiosity got the better of the takers, and they killed it outright. By killing the goose that laid all those golden eggs, they lost all present and future source of revenue. The “have” countries cannot continue to support, under-write and advance the “have-not” countries to the degree that they formerly have, at the peril of their own economic system(s), to say nothing of the havoc that is being wreaked against their people on foreign soil.

No regular business would ever be so irresponsible to operate that way. And to make matters worse, it's your money they're wasting.

I don't know if President Romney, er, Obama, reads this column, but if he does, it may give him some ideas. I have a couple of things for him to think about: One, cut back your foreign aid, at least until there is far more accountability in place (just be consistent with what you do with, say, unemployment benefits). Two, don't throw money at the enemies of your country (or better, don't throw good money after bad); only the good Lord above knows what they are spending it on—and it certainly isn't postage and thank you notes.

And, if you want a third tidbit of advice, phone my wife. She knows the value of a buck or two.

Foremost on my Mind: Sing It!

Next to eating, sleeping, and acting, one my greatest loves is singing. Those around me may not feel the same way, but, hey, I can't help it if others are culturally deprived.

Thus, every Thursday night I wind my way to the local chapter of the SPEBSQSA—the Society for the Preservation and Encouragement of Barber Shop Quartet Singing in America. This particular chapter happens to be in Lethbridge, but it's worth the drive.

I thought I was singing with a bunch of old guys until I discovered their ages. I think I'm the third eldest of the bunch. I can't think of all their names, but a few come to mind: Tom, Dick, and Harry; Moe, Larry, and Curly; plus, Alvin and the Chipmunks.

When I showed up for the first time, the director asked me what part I sang. I misunderstood: I said, “All of me.” He misunderstood too and told me to sing tenor—ten or twelve miles away.

Seriously, folks, I stepped right into the lead position. I didn't mean to, but he was in the way. I wanted to follow, not knowing anything about SPEBSQSA, but they said, “Lead, lead.” So I led.

I have been asked what genre barbershop singing is, but I don't know. I don't even know what the word “genre” means. (Just kidding, Maurice, just kidding.) I think it is “swing.” At least that's what I feel like doing after a few bars of “baby this,” and “honey that.” I have never sung so much romance in my life, excluding my shower croonings before I got married. If I practiced half of what I sang, I'd have twice the marriage.

Barbershop is really old-fashioned and homey music—four-part harmony, if you will-- that seems to have lost much of its lustre in many parts of North America. All kidding aside, I am actually one of the youngest members of the Bridge City chapter, and this is not uncommon. Nor healthy.

I put this declining interest in league with lawn bowling, square dancing and quilting. I'm kind of in the middle years (1954) of what they call Baby Boomers, and it is clear that these and other hobbies appeal to those at the earlier years end and before.

The question is, Why? I could go on my usual rant about television, computers, smartphones, and other cyber toys, and I wouldn't be too far off. But the truth is, I don't know why.

It does lie, I believe, somewhere within the realm of “sources of entertainment.” In other words, are we takers or givers when it comes to entertainment? If our source is from outside ourselves, we will sit there and take whatever comes our way; or, if our source is self-generated, we will create it, or pursue it.

Pushing a button here, watching a screen there, or flicking on a switch somewhere else, can easily be the curse of creativity--the source of squelching all innovative juices within ourselves. The generation that climbed trees, played outside each day after school till dark, enjoyed board games on the weekends—created their own fun, if you will-- is now the same generation that lawn bowls, square dances and quilts—with some exceptions granted.

But the generation of us Baby Boomers changed all that, and the Xers and others that have followed have it even worse. I say “worse” sincerely, as I am convinced that the more fun we can generate for ourselves, the better and happier we are. And that includes the (old) guys I sing with.

Quaint, for sure; wholesome, indeed; but mostly inspirational, to me. I think the guys and gals in my generation, then anyone born in the '60s and later, are missing out on a serious element of fun, fulfillment, and freedom.

So if you wish to join me next time, that would be great. And if you hear the words, “Let Me Call You Sweetheart,” just remember it's a song, not a proposition. Don't take it personal; just make it personal.

After all, “Everybody Loves a Lover.”

Foremost on my Mind: Mitt for Me

If I were an American, I would be happy to vote for Mitt Romney in November. In fact, I would insist that everyone with a conscience vote for him. However, I couldn't force anyone's hand to do so, as both Canada and America are still token democracies, or so we're told.

Let me spell out the reasons why I would do the above, first in a negative format, then a positive one.

First, it has nothing to do with colour. In fact, I was so relieved when Americans had the courage to vote a black man into office. Character, not colour, should always be a higher qualification for office, job, or even friendship. I tend to see people in terms of inner virtue more than outer shade.

Second, it has nothing to do with religion. I am aware that Mr. Romney is a Mormon, as are many readers of this column. While I know some Mormons, and even have some professionals in my life who are Mormon, I am not one myself—so, no bias here, thanks.

Finally, it has nothing to do with looks. Yes, he looks like he could be a USA president, but looks (beauty and ugliness) are surface, superficial, and shallow. We are driven beyond reason to believe, emulate, and even worship good-looking people over those who aren't—and look at the mess that's got us into.

Now let's get positive.

First, he can't be any worse than Barack Obama. Thus, a fresh perspective and voice, a new team in the White House, would be most welcome. I challenge any rational-thinking reader to check out Romney's credentials when it comes to his birth certificate, his years at Harvard Law School, and his marriage to his wife, Ann—just for starters. Then if you get ambitious, look in to his charitable donations (versus Obama's and Biden's).

Second, he has some very strong economic principles, seen both through his past successes and present vision. To be sure, some money he inherited, some he invested: The money he inherited from his father, I understand, he donated to charity; in terms of investment, he got involved in something called Bain Capital that has grown exponentially.

As a venture-capitalist, Romney's first major business deal with Bain Capital involved investing in a start-up office supply company with one store in Massachusetts that sold office supplies. That company, called Staples, now has over 2,000 stores and employs over 90,000 people. And while they're at it, someone should find out how he eliminated a 1.5 billion-dollar debt while governor of Massachusetts, an office he held for four years--with no salary.

And did I mention the three years of salary-free service he gave as CEO to the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics?

Finally, he comes at things from the right-wing perspective, versus Obama's left-wing viewpoint. This is a complete bias from yours truly, but I do say it sincerely and thoughtfully. I have always maintained that the moderate right should always hold office, with the moderate left as leaders of the opposition. That's why last week's election in Quebec is such a debacle.

This last reason is quite frankly the best argument I would use for a Romney-led USA government. I say that on every front--morally, economically, religiously—for starters, he is the right man for the job. By the way, Romney is pro-Canada, pro-Alberta, and in particular, pro-Keystone XL Pipeline. Think of the economical boon it would be to our nation.

The above, of course, is a pipe dream: I can't vote, because I am not an American citizen. I like the States: I like to visit and shop there, and I would even consider living there for a while, but that's as far as it goes for me. I just wish the best for them.

They are a powerful country, a global player, but they need to be stronger and more robust than ever. Under a Romney-led government, I'm sure they could regain their former role. The American voters indeed need our prayers.

Maybe, just maybe, under President Romney, we could do that...publicly.

-->