Ernie Fitzpatrick asked:


Twelve years ago I read a small book that was far from the kind of reading that I’d normally read. I was ten years into having started a church, and I was seeing that the changes I had made from a denomination to a charismatic church weren’t enough. There was more. I didn’t FIT in the denomination, nor could I wear Saul’s charismatic armor.  

The book was entitled, “A Peacock in the Land of Penguins”.

The COLORFUL Spirit that I felt and embraced didn’t match with the BLACK-n-WHITE constraints of this instead of that, ours and not theirs, as well as believe and don’t question! However, I had questions! I had doubts about things that I was told I could not question. When something didn’t make sense, I had simply been told to JUST BELIEVE.

That’s like telling a Peacock to paint their feathers black and white.

On top of that my “nature” was to question and to embrace all sides of an issue and not just that which I’d grown up with and thought unquestionable. I received a college scholarship because of my debate skills in high school. I attribute my success in part because of my debate coach. In my first debate, I was told I’d be opening the debate on the AFFIRMATIVE. So, I prepared all of the reasons why the question would work.

An hour before I was to debate, the coach came in and said, SURPRISE! Ernest, I want you to take the NEGATIVE side! Say what!

I had an hour to do an about face and prepare just the opposite arguments, but what I realized, to my amazement, was that in preparing for one side, I had to look at the other side to anticipate what they might say. Any good attorney will tell you that you never ask a question of the person on the witness stand that you don’t know what their answer will be – or at least have a good idea.

Unfortunately, most fervent and religious people only know what they’ve been told and that’s all they want to know. They spend their life “defending the faith” regardless of how illogical the arguments may be. And, they have not a clue as to what the other religions believe because they don’t care, etc. In life generally the Mars male doesn’t want to know how the Venus female feels.

Mars rules. NOT!  

The heterosexual doesn’t even want to be around the ********* homosexual, let alone communicate or try and understand the emotions that they’re feeling, being trapped in a body that doesn’t match their emotions. It’s easier to just quote a Scripture and tell them to get “right with God”. Scientifically and spiritually we are ALL RAINBOW people- Peacocks. We’ve just allowed the doctrine, dogma, and law to paint us with a BLACK-n-WHITE brush. Our way or the highway.

Let your LIGHT(s- all the colors)) SHINE!

Lawrence Reaves asked:


What did the grape say when it was rolled over by a beer keg?

Nothing – it just let out a little “wine”!

What we drink says a lot about who we are – if you believe the marketing companies who target the mass markets with multi-million dollar commercials and campaigns. But is this really true?

Enjoying both beers and wines is not a mutually exclusive pastime – I personally drink both and conform with neither stereotypical image of either drinker – I’m not a young stud hanging out with great looking ***** in a bar while ice-cold longnecks are guzzled by the truck load nor a wrinkly, liberal-looking, spectacle-wearing foodie with leather patches on my elbows.

Beer and wine have very long histories and a deep, cultural significance which is practically universal around the globe. Who actually invented beer and wine is lost in time, but both originated from the Middle East and probably have been made since Neolithic times (around 5000 B.C.) – certainly the ancient Egyptians and various empires based to the East of the Mediterranean Sea have documented wines and beers as well as irrefutable archaeological evidence.

Certainly in those ancient times, there was no such thing as an NFL or Nascar event while cheese & wine parties were not exactly on the social menu. The division of potential consumers using marketing, and by extension, social stereotypes for beer and wine markets has created a false picture of who actually drinks them. Since wine producers in California started making headway in international markets bck in the 80′sWine was the alcoholic drink of the masses in Europe and not the upper crust – beer was drunk as water, simply because it was safe to drink due to the alcohol content and in fact, beer was not brewed for the purpose of getting drunk, at least, not in the beginning but to purify water.

Mass production of beer really started in the 20th Century – in previous centuries other forms of alcohol dominated demand for getting smashed – and wine was one of the dominant beverages. With mass production came mass marketing and for beer sales, blue collar workers were targeted with drinks which were ice-cold and quenched thirst after a hard day’s work. Girls, cars, smiling friends and being Mr. Popular in the bar were all part of the marketing mix thrown at potential beer drinkers being sold on fizzy, yellow brews. The small breweries with a good brew have been left at the margins of the beer industry and appreciated by beer aficionados.

Marketing perception is rarely an accurate reflection of reality, if you consider that wine was discovered probably at an earlier date than beer from the archaeological evidence, wine would appear to have been the caveman’s first choice of fermented brew. If a caveman preferred wine to beer, this hardly matches the marketing perception that beer drinkers do not have taste nor being a hard-working macho-man precludes you from enjoying wine. Wine is also a more potent drink than beer for those who are looking to race to a hangover fast.

On the other hand, wine experts and followers will probably point to the labor and skill which goes into creating a fine wine – the reality is that brewing beer also requires just as much artistry and imagination as producing a good bottle of plonk. The number of micro-breweries and family-owned brewers who have maintained the tradition for numerous generations testifies to the diversity of taste, skill and ingenuity when it comes to producing a pint.

The bottom line – downing a beer or slurping a wine is not predetermined by social status or marketing categorization – it all comes down to one thing no matter who you are or what you do – your own taste.

James William Smith asked:


The media reaction to the recent ABC Presidential debate in Pennsylvania was almost unanimous. Television moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos were widely ridiculed for not asking a single question on an issue of political substance for more than the first fifty minutes of the Presidential debate. Indeed, there was not a single question on health care, the war in Iraq, the economy, illegal immigration, social security, or any other of the important challenges and issues facing America today.

Instead, for nearly the first hour of the debate, the voters heard questions concerning Barrack Obama’s recent dubious comments on small town America. In addition, the ABC moderators focused several questions on Obama’s relationship with his pastor, the controversial Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Another debate question concerned whether Obama loves the American flag and why he does not wear flag pins on his suit lapel. Still another question concerned Barack Obama’s relationship with the former radical leader of the “Weathermen“, William Ayers.

While some of the criticism of the coverage of the Democrats Pennsylvania debate is certainly valid (especially troubling were the continued camera shots of Former First daughter, Chelsea Clinton), the questions posed by the moderators in those first fifty minutes were exactly the types of questions that the American voter now needs answered in order to vote for or against Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama.

It is evident that the country is aware that Barack Obama is to the left of the American political center on most of the major issues. It also appears from the public opinion polls that much of the American public would currently support an inexperienced, liberal, Democratic politician in the 2008 Presidential election. In fact, the polls indicate that if an election between John McCain and Barack Obama was held today, it would certainly be very close.

So a pertinent question in the mind of the American voter is really just how far to the left of center are the politics of Barack Obama? The ultimate answer to that question will probably decide the 2008 Presidential election. Therefore, the questions in the first fifty two minutes of the ABC Presidential debate, while not about national issues, were certainly not frivolous and actually quite important.

Consider that Barack Obama is running for the highest office in the land on a very short political record. He has been a United States Senator for just three years. Prior to that he was a State Senator in Illinois. His political record is short and his voting record appears carefully designed with a future campaign for a high office in mind.

In announcing the reason for his candidacy for the Presidency, Barack Obama said: “What’s stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics, the ease with which we’re distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions”. His oratory sounds wonderful until one examines his actual record as an Illinois State Senator. That record indicates that he voted “present,” (effectively sidestepping many important issues) nearly 130 times. It is a political voting record that gives little insight into today‘s presidential candidate. It is also a voting record that is in conflict with the words of the man.

As a result, in the minds of the voters, there are really two distinct Presidential candidates named Barack Obama. Which of the two is the actual candidate is the biggest question the voters must answer between now and election day. The fact is that the Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate who secretly agrees with the diatribes of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. He also supports Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers, and other extreme activists of the American left. The Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate that makes elitist comments about small town America and its guns and religion. The Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate that continues to backpedal and apologize for gaffes and communication errors.

However, the Barack Obama who can win the 2008 Presidential election is the candidate who uses his considerable communication skills to unite the nation. Also, he must be a candidate who transcends partisan politics and wants real reform in Washington, D.C. He would learn quickly from his limited experience and cannot vote “present” on the major issues of the day. He may not be an elitist, but should be the candidate who has shown great skill in the management of his heretofore successful Presidential campaign.

Is Barack Obama a unique, thoughtful politician who can transcend party politics and use his considerable oratory skill to lead the country and reform Washington DC.? Or is Barack Obama a far left of center, elitist candidate who secretly admires the dubious diatribes of his radical pastor, and who condones the actions of a violent underground leader of America’s past?

Historically, American political reality concludes that the former Barack Obama can win the 2008 Presidential election, while the latter Barack Obama simply cannot. It certainly would be a lot easier for the voters during the next several months if the real Barack Obama finally stood up.

Yodle asked:


Lawyers often get a bad rap for a variety of reasons and the public generally views them as amoral but necessary nuisances. And while some lawyers very easily fit this description (see Devil’s Advocate: History’s Most Controversial Lawyers), it would be a grave mistake to lump all attorney’s into this unfortunate stereotype. After all, a court of law was amongst the first societal innovations to accompany the rise of civilization, and in the same way that there are two sides to every story – there are two lawyers in every trial.

So in an effort to pay tribute to some our great unsung courtroom cowboys, we’ve listed the greatest lawyers in history.

Abraham Lincoln

Though Abraham Lincoln is most known for his battle to end slavery as the 16th President of the United States, many are unaware of his earlier career battling in the court of law.

Born in Kentucky to a family of uneducated farmers, Lincoln left his humble upbringings to travel to New Salem, Illinois where he worked a variety of odd jobs all while teaching himself the inner-workings of law. When he was finally granted the right to practice as an attorney, he got to work immediately and quickly became one of Illinois’ most formidable lawyers. During his tenure as a lawyer, he tackled any kind of case imaginable- including trials for medical malpractice, corporate misconduct, murder, slander, fraud and many more.

In retrospect, it’s easy to see how Lincoln’s 20+ year long career as an attorney helped shape him into the masterful politician he would later become by sharpening his debate skills and keeping him in touch with the issues that matter to the public. And considering the fact that he went on to become one of the nation’s greatest Presidents should stand as evidence that being a lawyer doesn’t necessarily make you a lowlife- it just predisposes you to being a lowlife, which makes it all the more impressive that Lincoln turned out so cool.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

The fact that this guy is credited for having liberated India from tyranny, influenced a sweeping world-wide trend towards civil rights and became the de facto spiritual leader for a generation might make it surprising to know that he was also a gifted attorney. But such was the man, the myth, the legend of Gandhi.

Gandhi’s career as a lawyer began in London during the late 1800′s where he received his degree in law. He later moved to South Africa to pursue a career in law, but upon arrival he was faced with extreme racial prejudice against him and other Indians. After being beaten and discriminated against, he became involved in civil rights cases defending other Indian immigrants. A crucial moment in his life as a lawyer came after he refused to remove his turban during a court trial – an event that inspired his move towards activism and non-violent civil protest.

After being imprisoned in South Africa for his activism, Gandhi returned to India where he led the fight against the tyrannical British Empire, eventually resulting in India’s independence.

Though Gandhi’s career in law was ultimately overshadowed by his spiritual and political guidance, his history as a lawyer is still enough for him to qualify for this list – as if he needed another excuse to go down in history.

Thurgood Marshall

Even more than Martin Luther King or Malcolm X, the rise of the civil rights movement and eradication of discriminatory laws against African-Americans can be attributed to the work of Thurgood Marshall. Whereas Martin Luther King and others led the battles in the streets, Thurgood Marshall led the battles in the court and has easily become one of America’s most historic lawyers.

After receiving his law degree from Howard University in 1933, Marshall set up a practice in Baltimore where he began taking on major civil rights cases and quickly became one of the country’s most prominent lawyers, winning his first Supreme Court case at the age of 32.

His most famous case came in 1954 with the now historic Brown v. Board of Education trial which overturned the infamous “separate but equal” laws that had been enforced since the abolition of slavery in the 1800′s.

In total, Marshall won 29 of the 32 cases he argued before the Supreme Court and later went on to become the first African-American to serve as a Supreme Court Justice- a position he held for nearly 25 years. Ultimately, Thurgood Marshall’s successes in law represents one of the brightest times in the judicial system’s history and provided proof to the efficacy of the American court of law.

Alan Dershowitz

Alan Dershowitz is one of the most famous lawyers in the world and he has won numerous distinctions for his work in civil rights. Newsweek has called him “[one of] the most distinguished defenders of individual rights,” and Time describes him as being “a sort of judicial St Jude,” all of which combine to make him one of the greatest lawyers in history and the only attorney on this list still practicing.

Dershowitz graduated from Yale Law School first in his class in 1962 where he was editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal. He then went on to join the faculty of Harvard Law where he became the youngest full professor of law in Harvard’s history at the age of 28.

During his time as an attorney, he practiced a great deal of criminal law and was involved in several of the country’s most high-profile court cases, including the trials of Patricia Hearst, Leona Helmsley, Mike Tyson and OJ Simpson. He has since become one of Israel’s most outspoken defenders and is a recipient of the William O Douglas First Amendment Award from the Anti-Defamation League for his work on civil rights.

Though Derschowitz has also been the source of much controversy, his battle for civil rights and his prodigal understanding of law will undoubtedly go down as his greatest legacy, which is why Alan Dershowitz tops off this list of history’s greatest lawyers.

Ian Wendt asked:


We like to get worked up. You have seen it – two people facing off, red in the face, sweat on the brow, a bit of saliva on the lips. Yes, I am talking politics. Yeah, we like to get worked up. That’s fine. But when our rhetoric or our debate descends into vulgarity, personal attacks, shouting, abuse, or violence by language, we have lost something important. Vulgarity and abusive language are obvious signs of weak, lazy thinking. But more importantly, there is a fundamental immorality to extreme speech. That rhetorical immorality belittles those who have suffered and do suffer real abuse; and extreme speech robs our world of a level of crucial meaning.

Ideology and Politics as Entertainment

Ideology has become entertainment. Cable news, radio talk shows, shockjocks, bloggers – all of these have an inherent entertainment value. Of course the successful ones also have substance: something to say, ideas, arguments. But often times the style becomes the message. It is not about the ideas; it’s about the insults. Perhaps that is good for online journals like Ideology Forum at some level; but it is also troubling.

Raising the volume and the temperature of your rhetoric can be great for ratings and ad revenue. There are a wide array of people who have become famous and rich by skillfully exploiting extreme rhetoric. Extremity brings notoriety and attracts viewers. Of course you had better be careful you don’t move from notable to notorious – a shift that Don Imus made almost overnight. But even that line, once crossed can become a cross to carry and advertise. ‘My enemies are persecuting me.’ ‘Those censors are attacking my first amendment rights.’

We are participating in a gradual synthesis of news, politics and entertainment. We are participating. In this more democratic media age, we participate by watching and listening and reading (and paying) the extreme speakers. We are participating by joining the debate on the internet and using increasingly extreme rhetoric ourselves. But our speech has consequences.

I love politics. I love politics because it matters – for policy, for governance, for law, for liberty. I love it for the ideas and the debate. I love it for the human dramas that constantly play out in democracy. I love politics and ideology for many reasons – and among those is the exhilarating experience of politics as sport. We root for our parties, for our favorite politicians. We follow the horserace. We stay up on election night waiting for the results, for the latest round of the US Government Championship Series. Many even bet on the outcome – in more ways than one. This is more than just another sports analogy for life. We do follow politics as sports. I suppose that ideally politics would not descend to sport – but it does.

Perhaps the most important negative consequence of treating politics, ideas and ideology as sport is: that we mistake the means of politics for the ends. Elections and campaigns ought to be means toward the end of governance. After the election, good governance should be possible based on principled debate and compromise on issues. Instead, the election becomes the permanent end and we sacrifice principles and governance in favor of attacking personalities and politicians. It is not about governance or laws; it’s about winning and losing. And there is always another election in a couple of years.

The permanent campaign and politics as sport exacerbates the use of extreme speech. It does not matter what you say, so long as you destroy your opponent. Even long after the campaign, we continue to viciously attack one another because governance and compromise is no longer the goal. The goal is winning the next round, the next championship. Our politicians are guilty of this; activists and lobbyists are guilty of this; we are all guilty of this.

The Weakness of Extreme Speech

Public debate and rhetorical combat is a long-revered tradition. It is alive and well. Ideology Forum exists to provide a space for the practice of open ideological debate. Do not misunderstand the purpose of this article – I do not think that we should all get along and compromise our principles for the sake of peace and quiet. People have passionate ideals and causes for good reason. At a basic level, loud, angry rhetoric is better than the silence of apathy.

But there are a variety of weaknesses exposed by high volume, personal attacks and vulgarity. Primarily, they are not communicative. Shouting and insults do not communicate meaning. They are just attacks. Vulgarity shows a lack of thought and meaning, an inability to articulate ideas, and a basic intellectual laziness. Vulgar attacks communicate only anger, frustration, (bad) judgment, and (self) contempt. They seek to demean rather than engage. Such attacks and rhetoric are an admission that you have lost the debate, or you lack the skills or will to win rhetorically.

There have been times in our past when insults had wit. Abraham Lincoln was not above insulting his opponents: “He can compress the most words into the smallest ides of any man I know.” Winston Churchill and Oscar Wilde also had the knack for wit and insult that did not demean the listener simply by hearing. But today, we too often resort to calling our opponents ‘Nazi baby killers’ then move on as if we have completed an argument.

There is such a wide array of common examples of the weakness of extreme speech that it hardly requires rehearsing them. So I won’t.

The Immorality of Extreme Speech

But extreme speech is more than just weak; it does more than demean the speaker, the object, and the listener. Extreme speech – particularly extreme analogies and extreme relativism – actually belittle those who have suffered and do suffer real abuses; and extreme speech robs our world of a level of crucial meaning. Extreme analogies and extreme relativism are actually fundamentally immoral.

Extreme analogies are an insidious kind of rhetoric that has become practically ubiquitous. The fools’ gold standard of extreme analogies is calling your opponent ******. Godwin’s rule of **** analogies states, “the longer a discussion takes place on the internet and the more people involved, the probability of someone being compared to ****** or the ***** approached one.” In other words, if enough people talk long enough on the internet, someone is sure to start shouting, ‘Nazi!’ These attacks are everywhere. It is passé to call to call people ‘Commies’. But asserting that your opponents are goose-stepping their way toward Fascism and genocide – what an argument! – is so common that we don’t even flinch at it. This is just another cheap way to shout down your opponent, without engaging their ideas or arguments.

But there is something deeply wrong with constantly shouting ****** at ones opponents; and it goes much deeper than immature language. It is actually immoral to constantly call all of your opponents little Eichmanns. What about the people who have actually suffered from the things you purport to **** so much? You **** fascism? You **** abuse of human rights? You **** anti-democratic activities? You **** genocide and systematic **** and torture? Then take them seriously. Do not accuse political opponents of such terrible crimes unless they actually commit them. If they do commit crimes against human rights, then be specific. Such accusations should mean something; they should have power; they should work toward lifting the suffering of the abused.

Conversely and perversely, the vulgarity of calling everyone ***** actually belittles the suffering of people who have died and continue to die at the hands of despots. If everyone you disagree with is a Nazi, then being a **** is silly; it’s stupid; it’s meaningless. But it is not and cannot be meaningless. Too many people have been starved or worked to death or gassed in concentration camps, or hacked to death by machetes, or burned alive in churches, or tortured to death in hidden places. Too many people have been raped, tortured and killed all over the world during the 20th and 21st centuries to demean their lives and deaths by calling your opponent in a political debate a ****. We must preserve the meaning and power of speech.

The immorality of extreme relativism is a very similar abuse of the meaning and power of speech. False assertions of moral equivalence are deeply immoral. Blithely asserting that all morality is relative undermines the position of people who suffer real abuse of their human rights. Morals and cultural can indeed differ according to circumstances. But this should not and cannot stop us from identifying abuse and condemning it. People know when their human rights are violated – and they don’t need ‘Western’ ideals or morals to tell them they have been abused. Similarly we must be capable of distinguishing between different forms of abuse, because if all abuses are equivalent then they are all the more trivial.

Sadly, the examples of false moral equivalence and amoral relativism are terribly commonplace. How often have you read or heard arguments that falsely equated the morality of government surveillance in a democratic state with extrajudicial executions in authoritarian states? When we assert the moral equivalence of completely different acts, we rob our world of a basic level of meaning.

If we really care about liberty, democracy and human rights, then we must be willing to condemn abuses wherever they occur; and we must be willing to judge, compare and more loudly condemn the more terrible abuses. If we refuse to condemn any abuse, we ignore some victims in favor of others. If we are unwilling to evaluate and recognize greater abuses, we belittle the victims of the worst abuse. If we equate moderate abuses (or heaven forbid non-abuses) with genocide, then we make a direct attack on the meaning of language and basic morality.

Extreme analogies and false moral equivalence are deeply immoral forms of speech.

Abusive, vulgar, personal attacks are weak tools that we do not need. Extreme analogies and false moral equivalence do much greater damage to those who truly suffer than the damage we may accomplish to our opponent’s argument. People will be convinced by the power of our ideas, the reality of our experience, and the intelligence and clarity of our rhetoric. We do not need extreme speech.

Eric Roth asked:


What level of English Speaking Skills Should be Required of New Citizens?

As the immigration debate moves forward, a common mantra across the spectrum is that illegal immigrants (and possibly citizens) would have to learn English to become naturalized. The question is, what level of English is required? The naturalization law clearly states that individuals must read, write, and speak English before becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. As a former director of a citizenship program back in mid-1990s, I can verify that the Clinton administration’s standard didn’t go beyond answering a few set questions in English and writing two sample sentences that were dictated.

The most common sentences were “I love the U.S.” and “My family lives in the U.S.” Wow! What standards! But the ruse worked, and over six million folks became naturalized before the 1996 election. Of course, the new citizens were overwhelming Democrat… and were concentrated in five key states: California, New York, Illinois, Florida, and Texas. Clinton won re-election, many Republicans cried foul, and immigration became even more politicized. Eventually, Congress ordered new standards. PriceWaterhouse did a study to revise and modernize the naturalization system.

So what does the Obama administration plan? The preliminary indications are not much better than the Clinton standard. (For historical perspective, immigrants after WWII had to write two long essays on a principle of the government or historical event.) Here’s another question: will the next immigration bill include a minimum number of classroom hours of instruction in English? The amnesty bill of 1986 required 40 hours of classroom instruction. What will the 2009 bill require? If the answer is anything less than 100 hours, then you know that moving millions of immigrants to a fast track toward citizenship has a higher priority than maintaining English as a common language. Is that a good idea? Perhaps not.

First, the failure to mandate English classes will hand immigration opponents a huge advantage. Let’s be clear: every new United States citizen should be able to read a USA Today newspaper article, fill out a job application, understand safety warnings, talk to their co-workers, discuss their children’s grades with their teachers, take a driver’s license test, respond to a police officer’s questions, and describe their medical problems in English. Second, increasing English speaking skills for immigrants won’t happen overnight. We need to dramatically increase the incentives and opportunities for immigrants to improve their speaking skills by opening more English as a Second language classes in churches, schools, and community centers.

After all, if we want to enforce higher standards for future citizens we must first create open more adult school classrooms. English has become the common global language for business, culture, and research. It’s reasonable to ask new American citizens to actually speak the common language. It is disheartening to know that a measly $400 million has been appropriated for one full year of Adult Education needs. That looks like a state budget – for such a Herculean task. Rep. Raul Grijalva, a democrat from Arizona, is asking his fellow members in the House of Representatives to co-sign a letter that will be sent to appropriators asking for:

$750 million for funding under Title II of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA)

$850 million for funding under Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)

That makes a lot of sense in terms of allocation of funds for two different areas of concern. The Obama administration will also have to provide far more funding in the future to make comprehensive immigration reform popular.

What about those adults who are the bread winners but are still not comfortable with English as a medium of expression? As the Obama administration begins pushing for a new citizenship bill which will face considerable political opposition, it should prepare the immigrant advocates for the probability of higher English speaking standards. Some sort of mandatory classroom attendance, especially for healthy workers, seems likely. Of course, the tests will also have to flexible for the disabled and seniors who face more hurdles in learning a new language.

Joseph Conrad, who learned English as a fourth language, stated “English saved my life.” Shouldn’t we give every naturalization candidate the same chance to realize their potential and learn English before joining our national family?

Matt Somers asked:

A wise man once said that apart from the spelling there is no difference between counselling and coaching. There’s a shade of truth in this but for the sake of the clarity I’m trying to achieve in this piece I am going to illustrate the differences such as they are. In fairness, it’s relatively easy for me to do this as I am concentrating on coaching that takes place at work; usually delivered by a line manager. We’ll see later on when we come to look at the different types and branches of coaching activity that the lines of distinction do become far more blurred.

As with mentoring, the skills of the coach and the counsellor are the same. They each listen attentively, ask probing questions and offer non-judgemental observations in the spirit of helping their ‘clients’ find their own answers. I don’t think either a coach or a counsellor would go down the “You should…”, “You must…” route. The difference does not lie in the skill set; it has much more to do with the content of the conversation and the desired result.

Counsellors are concerned with identifying root causes. They will guide us on a journey through our history to identify critical incidents and problems that have left a mark and cause us problems still. With such issues identified, the work of the counsellor develops into one of exploring ways of dealing with those problems and making changes. We can easily see that relationship counsellors, substance abuse counsellors, bereavement counsellors, etc. focus on dealing with what’s happened.

Coaches are concerned with moving forward. Coaches help the people whom they coach to identify a desired set of circumstances, to examine how that contrasts with current circumstances and then to plan out a series of steps to get from one point to the other. The coach starts from the here and now and, although aware that situations in the past can cause problems today, is more focused on creating mobility and momentum and on getting people started. Coaches focus on dealing with what must happen next.

Picture the scene: you’re three-nil down at half time. The team counsellor would examine the mistakes of the first half, but the team coach would set out the tactics for the second. Both are useful, and as ever are often combined. As always, the needs of the people we’re helping must override any semantic debate around the differences.

However, getting the positioning right is crucial. I’ve seen many a coaching programme get off to a shaky start because staff perceived that they were going to be counselled and were obviously uneasy about how well their managers were qualified to offer this kind of help and whether it was appropriate to talk about potentially emotive personal issues in a work context. Of course there may be a time for counselling at work, and what starts out as a straightforward coaching session may move in that direction. With this in mind it is worth checking out your organization’s welfare and access to counselling policy if you have the slightest suspicion that a coaching approach may uncover a deep seated issue and thus need a professional intervention.

The statements below are an attempt to put these comparisons in simple terms

Managing “Do this.”

Instructing “Here’s how to do this.”

Training “Have a go at doing this.”

Mentoring “My advice would be to….”

Counselling “What feelings does this invoke?”

Coaching “How do you think you could…?”

I wonder if in the end these differences are purely academic and of more interest to people like me who muse on these things, than to people like you who have the harder task of getting people to be the best they can at work.

Having said that, an appreciation of the similarities and differences is useful when it comes to positioning coaching in your team and in your organization. You may well find that if your team is unclear about what coaching involves and have confused it with other things, then they may not engage as fully as you’d wish.

Gian Fiero asked:

If you are trying to get a job, or a better job, your chances of doing so will be greatly enhanced by the experience and education you place on your resume, but the “soft” skills that you demonstrate will distinguish and differentiate you from the gluttony of competitors who are vying for the same job.

But what are those skills?

Apparently, in spite of the flood of resumes that employers are receiving during a time when the market is saturated with job seekers, they are not as happy with their prospects as you might think.

This is according to a comprehensive survey conducted by Randall S. Hansen, Ph.D., and Katharine Hansen, Ph.D. Their survey is a distillation of many studies done on the skills universally sought by employers.

A portion of the skill list derived from their survey follows.

Communications Skills (listening, verbal, written). By far, the one skill mentioned most often by employers is the ability to listen, write, and speak effectively. Successful communication is critical in business.

Exceptional listener and communicator. Someone who effectively conveys information verbally and in writing.

Analytical/Research Skills. Deals with your ability to assess a situation, seek multiple perspectives, gather more information if necessary, and identify key issues that need to be addressed.

Highly analytical. Thinking with demonstrated talent for identifying, scrutinizing, improving, and streamlining complex work processes.

Computer/Technical Literacy. Almost all jobs now require some basic understanding of computer hardware and software, especially word processing, spreadsheets, and email.

Computer-literate performer. Competent with extensive software proficiency covering wide variety of applications.

Flexibility/Adaptability/Managing Multiple Priorities. Deals with your ability to manage multiple assignments and tasks, set priorities, and adapt to changing conditions and work assignments.

Flexible team player. Someone who thrives in environments requiring ability to effectively prioritize and juggle multiple concurrent projects.

Interpersonal Abilities. The ability to relate to your co-workers, inspire others to participate, and mitigate conflict with co-workers is essential given the amount of time spent at work each day.

Proven relationship-builder. Someone with unsurpassed interpersonal skills.

Leadership/Management Skills. While there is some debate about whether leadership is something people are born with, these skills deal with your ability to take charge and manage your co-workers.

Goal-driven leader. Someone who maintains a productive climate and confidently motivates, mobilizes, and coaches employees to meet high performance standards.

Multicultural Sensitivity/Awareness. There is possibly no bigger issue in the workplace than diversity, and job-seekers must demonstrate a sensitivity and awareness to other people and cultures.

Personable & Professional. Strengths include cultural sensitivity and an ability to build rapport with a diverse workforce in multicultural settings.

Planning/Organizing. Deals with your ability to design, plan, organize, and implement projects and tasks within an allotted time frame. Also involves goal-setting.

Results-driven achiever. Someone with exemplary planning and organizational skills, along with a high degree of detail orientation.

Problem-Solving/Reasoning/Creativity. Involves the ability to find solutions to problems using your creativity, reasoning, and past experiences along with the available information and resources.

Innovative problem-solver. Someone who can generate workable solutions and resolve complaints.

Teamwork. Because so many jobs involve working in one or more work-groups, you must have the ability to work with others in a professional manner while attempting to achieve a common goal.

Resourceful team player. Someone who excels at building trusting relationships with customers and colleagues.

As someone who specializes in career planning, I have to give kudos to Randall and Katharine for this meticulous list. It’s one of the best I’ve seen. If you are serious about finding a job, including and demonstrating the above skills on your resume, and highlighting them in your interviews, may be the key to opening the door to greater opportunities for you.

Robert William Locke asked:


When parents mention natural treatment of ADHD in children, they are usually referring to some herbal concoction, or homeopathy. It is true that these treatments are very important in ADHD treatment but they are really just one part of the rather complex equation which is ADHD. If the equation is to add up, then ADHD natural supplements given in the form of pills are just not enough. There are millions of parents who are giving their children medication in the form of amphetamines which are certainly NOT by any stretch of the imagination, a natural treatment of ADHD in children.

Let us take a rather broader look at natural treatment of ADHD in children. Behaviour modification can be used in conjunction with a natural treatment. It basically consists in having a set of rules laid down by the parents where the child knows that there will be a series of rewards/bonuses for good behaviour while bad behaviour will have some nasty consequences. The child is made aware early on what the boundaries and the limits are. The emphasis is on the action/behavior rather than letting the child think s/he is good or bad. Good behaviour is rewarded with a system of stars, affection, treats, etc while bad behaviour is frowned on and the child has to take the consequences of having a privilege withdrawn or just being ignored for a time.

Diet can be a natural treatment for ADHD and it must be an essential, element in any ADHD treatment plan. We are not just talking about ADHD natural supplements here but rather about food dyes/colourings. America has fallen behind the UK and Europe on this one. The Center For Science in the Public Interest has now lobbied the FDA to ban these dyes as there is a definite link between them and behaviour disorders, hyperactivity and attention deficit disorder (ADD). The green colours in Karft\’s Guacamole Dip are not due to the avocadoes but rather to a nasty mixture of Yellow 5, Yellow 6 and Blue 1. The best diet for ADHD is to avoid these colourings and processed foods in general, favouring fresh and organic foods and ADHD natural supplements such as fish oil.

Parenting skills are a key element in a natural ADHD treatment plan. There is a problem often with parents who have ADHD themselves but they are totally unaware of it. In these cases they have real problems in keeping their kids under control and they themselves will struggle with the daily parenting tasks. These can range from establishing routines at home, remembering to renew doctor\’s prescriptions and keeping on schedule. This is going to negatively impact on the ADHD child and the best plan of all is to have the whole family tested for ADHD.

As we have seen a natural treatment of ADHD in children can cover quite a range of strategies but the most important is to choose one which will not increase your child\’s chances of ending up on the drugs scene. ADHD meds are now popular on the teenage drugs scene. There are also reports which have established that stunted growth is a risk. Natural treatment for ADHD in children which consists of a homeopathic remedy will have no side effects and will be just as effective. The link below will tell you all about it.

Steven Sonsino asked:

One of the skills that successful leaders need to master is a bit of a dirty word these days. It’s not the sort of thing they offer leadership training courses on, but it lies at the heart of most business relationships. What I’m talking about is office politics.

When we call someone ‘a political animal’, we’re often not being complimentary. We tend to mean that they’re manipulative and untrustworthy, maybe even immoral or dishonest.

A person who’s good at politics, in our eyes, is someone who likes to score points over others, who tries to scramble to the top of the heap over his or her colleagues.

But politics isn’t all about manipulation. There’s more to it than that. And whether we like it or not, politics is everywhere in the workplace and a good leader needs to know how to make the most of it.

So what does politics have to do with good leadership? Well, to start with, politics involves being aware of the effects your words and actions have on others. And – even more importantly – it also means knowing how to influence people.

In an earlier article, we touched on leading change as a political process, but let’s focus for a moment on your interpersonal political skills in leading change negotiating, persuading, influencing. These leadership skills are essential for success and survival.

In a way, introducing change into an organization is like running a political campaign. If you get it right, your people will support you and your decisions.

How to get your people to accept change:

1. First, set up your campaign team. This isn’t just your fellow leaders, who’ve helped you draw up the plan behind the scenes, it’s also the movers and shakers in your organization. You need to identify them carefully and well. These are the people who can influence OTHER people. Perhaps the people that you can’t reach. If the movers and shakers know about and support what you’re doing, the job will be that much easier.

2. Now prepare yourself. You and your fellow leaders have been working on the plan for a long time. You know how much work has gone into it, and you know how vital it is for your business. Now is the time to get everyone else on board. But be prepared: not everyone’s going to like it.

3. Let the debate go on. Listen to what everyone says: be careful not to spend all your time with people who agree with you. Your fiercest opponents are valuable people: they help you gauge the level of resistance, they set out the arguments you need to defeat, and, if they eventually come round to your way of thinking, they will be some of your most valuable supporters.

The politics of business:

1. Find allies in ALL parts of the organization: you can exchange vital information that you might otherwise not have access to. And you can form coalitions, so together you can influence current and future developments.

2. Intervene in the political processes of the organization: share agendas, influence decisions and decision-makers.

3. Make sure you’re not simply surrounded by ‘yes’ men and women. You need to listen to the devil’s advocates – that way, you’re less likely to make mistakes.

There’s more, of course, there’s more. But deal with office politics on a project by project basis and you won’t go too far wrong. Leadership is sometimes described as a contact sport. It isn’t so much what you know as who you know.

So let me ask you this: who do YOU know?