Archive for the ‘Reputation’ Category

Naturally Honest

Is anyone else shocked about David Letterman’s revelation last night on The Late Show? I’m really only half shocked and even that is more from the surprise that women actually slept with him. As Dave pointed out, “Would it be embarrassing if it were made public? Perhaps it would, especially for the women.” He made light of it but that’s what he does. In truth, it really sounds like a more serious situation that Dave has been dealing with behind the scenes.

I’m not going to spend any time here judging his actions. That’s not my desire or reason for bringing this topic up. I bring it up because it made me wonder if Dave would have come clean had an extortionist not threatened to out him.

We all have skeletons lingering in our closets (and some are better left there), but if we’re not being honest with ourselves are we able to be honest with others? I think it’s safe to assume that even the best of us have made mistakes and chose to cover it up in order to save a career, a relationship, or a reputation.

Many attribute the adage “Honesty is the best policy” to Benjamin Franklin. In truth, its origin’s actually date back to the sixteenth century from Archbishop Whatley of Dublin who completed the thought with, “…but he who is governed by the maxim is not an honest man.” It really changes the whole meaning doesn’t it?

You shouldn’t feel forced to tell the truth. It should be a natural inclination to be honest and if it’s not then you have some work to do. I know I sure do.

How can we learn to be more naturally honest with ourselves and others?





The Polanski Compromise

There’s been quite a large amount of attention given to the recent arrest of film director Roman Polanski in the last few days. I’ve been absorbing the details and took the time needed to generate my own thoughts on the situation (a total of 5 seconds). I’m a fan of Polanski’s work but I can’t defend his actions. For those of you who may be unfamiliar with the story, let me take a few moments to get you up to speed. The rest of you please bear with me.

In 1977, Roman Polanski, at age 44, gave drugs and alcohol to Samantha Geimer, a 13 year-old girl, and then proceeded to sexually assault her. I’ll spare you the more disparaging details but if you’re interested in the nitty gritty then you should check out this article from X17 Online, which includes some of Samantha’s testimony from 1977. It’s pretty graphic so proceed with caution.

I also recommend this article by Sady Doyle of British news agency The Guardian. She has a very cynical perspective on this subject (she is British after all), but one that I find myself nodding in agreement with. It’s worth reading whether you’re familiar with the story or not.

Since his arrest, we’ve already heard pretty much every line that has ever been used to defend him during his decades as a fugitive: that his life has been hard, that he’s suffered (because everyone who has had a sufficiently tough life is, of course, entitled to one free rape, courtesy of the US government), that he’s paid his price (since living in Europe as a rich and acclaimed film director is a fate worse than death) and that the real tragedy is that he will forever be known as a rapist.

- Sady Doyle, The Guardian

Sarcasm aside, the real tragedy is that a young girl was raped not that the rapist will be known for what he is. Let’s be crystal clear: He gave 13 year-old girl drugs and alcohol and sexually assaulted her. Whether she consented or not (In 1977 the age of consent was 14 in California!) he still committed statutory rape.

Is it any less of a crime 30 years later? Are we really willing to compromise justice simply because of a persons social status and the age of the crime? Just days before Polanski’s arrest, a man from Fortuna, California was convicted for the statutory rape of his 9 year-old niece, a crime he had committed 27 years earlier. Unfortunately for him he wasn’t an aging, famous Hollywood filmmaker.

For another perspective on the issue, check out Joan Z. Shore’s article Polanki’s Arrest: Shame on the Swiss who asks the question, “Why does America always get sidetracked by sex and scandal?” Hmm, could it be that there’s still a shred of morality lingering in the putrid cesspools of our degenerate society? Not to mention that it was a blatant crime, not a mere scandal. I think her perspective is insane but we’re all entitled to our own opinion.

So what’s your opinon? Should Polanksi still stand trial for a crime that he’s evaded for 30 years? Is his crime any less punishable than when it was committed? What if this had been your daughter? Would you have a different perspective?

Image source: Sebastien Bozon/AFP/Getty Images





What’s In a Name?

Names are important.  They are an intrinsic component to our identity. It used to be important that the meaning behind a name be as well thought out as the name itself, but our American culture doesn’t invest heavily in that tradition. We seem to be more focused on how unique a name is more than what it means. Just do a search for “unique baby names” and see what kind of bizarre variations come up. Reminds me of musician Frank Zappa who famously named his daughter Moon Unit and his son Dweezil.

In Native American culture it was often the responsibility of an Elder to choose the name of a baby, but only after he/she had been in their physical form long enough that the spirit world could not call it back. They would give the newborn nicknames until the true name was decided. Sometimes the name was revealed to the Elder in a dream or based on the personality or characteristics of the child. It was a very personal mark of identification and once the name was chosen it held considerable meaning.

Some countries have adopted naming laws that define a legal name. In 1991, a Swedish couple refused to give their newborn baby a legal name as way of protesting one such naming law. Five years later they were fined for leaving their child legally nameless and chose to submit the name Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 to serve not so much as a compromise but as an “in your face” to the Swedish government. How they decided on that name is unknown but I’d like to think the father pounded his fist on the keyboard upon receiving the fine and thus the name was created. Or not.

But what’s in a name? It’s obviously more than a moniker used to address an individual. There’s an incredibly significant connection between a person’s name and the person themselves. Everything that defines us as a person is directly associated with our names. When we achieve great things it’s not our social security number or fingerprints that are acknowledged. Or on the flipside, when we totally screw things up, it’s not our dental records or DNA that are subjected to the consequences (well, hopefully not). It’s our names.

No matter how we acquire it or what the meaning behind it is, our reputation is synonymous with our name and follow us throughout our lives. This past week I was listening to a program on NPR that was discussing how social networking is negatively impacting legal proceedings in court. In one of the examples mentioned, a jury member had Googled the name of the defendant and found disparaging information about him. Though unrelated to the details of the trial it had added a damning facet to his character for this juror and her vote was singularly polarized to the rest of the jury’s vote of not guilty. She was outvoted but he had built up a bad reputation and a simple search of his name on the internet revealed it.

If you’re like me you will be Googling your name to see what results come up. Mine looks pretty good I guess. I’d like to think I’m a pretty decent guy. Nerds usually are.

Knowing how important your name is should encourage you to think about your actions and how they could have lasting effects on your reputation. I know from now on it will be a huge consideration in my decision making process.