What is Family?

Across the United States this week, families convened for dinner in celebration of Thanksgiving. Individuals who had not seen each other for days, months, and sometimes years, sat together and ate turkey, in commemoration of the meal celebrated between the Indians and Pilgrims. As this holiday comes to a close, it then begs the question-what defines a contemporary family in the year 2018?

Many families define their relationships to one another through shared genetics and connections created by marriage. Genetic connections can create shared physical attributes, similar interests, and related professions. Additionally, hobbies may be shared, in addition to preferred foods, colors, and other similar tastes. When families are together, it is often refreshing to be surrounded by individuals who are similar to us, reinforcing our beliefs, tastes, and preferences. Yet, does this define family, or is there, more to it?

Other families define family, not through shared genetics, but by shared interests alone. One example consists of meetup groups sharing Thanksgiving together, with shared interests such as canoeing, art, music, and beer. But do shared interests alone create a family, or does there need to be more? Do these individuals qualify as family for the simple reason that they share time, joy, and holidays together, or is more required?

Individuals with shared beliefs also sometimes consider themselves family. These individuals even go so far as to refer to one another as members of a larger “church family.” Some of these churches host holiday get-togethers, either within the church or within the homes of parishioners.’ Such familial church groups have a shared faith, often coupled with shared politics, and shared customs. Because of these broad familiarities, it is not surprising that church parishioners often marry one another, extending the church family into a genetic one.

With all of the positive attributes of family, there are also families that do not enjoy each other’s company. Holidays for these individuals often occur because of family obligation created by marriage or genetics. Thanksgivings for families such as these are sometimes unpleasant, argumentative, and even fiery. It is for reasons such as these, that some people do not care for holidays, and only begrudgingly show-up for the obligatory Turkey dinner. If the individuals at hand truly do not care for one another, do they still qualify as a family? Is genetics alone enough, or is more required?

Genetics, common interests and shared faith all encompass elements that comprise a family. Some families like one another, and/or have shared interests while others do not. However, one can argue that it is none of these things alone that create a family. Some assert that, instead, it is the holidays themselves that inspire the idea of family, bringing individuals together for a meal, who otherwise might not have anything to do with one another. One can argue that holidays such as Thanksgiving make us examine what, to us, represents family-and this is ultimately a personal decision, arguably inspired by national holidays.
In conclusion, family can be defined by different standards, including, genetics, marriage, interests, and faith. However, in the end, one can state that it is none of these things that actually create a family, but instead, the holidays themselves that inspire the idea of family. By doing so, individuals come together, who otherwise might not, to take part in something larger than themselves-a national holiday. And isn’t believing in something bigger than ourselves an essential part of our own humanity?

The heroes of yesterday were rugged, unforgiving, and victorious. The majority of early leaders got to their positions of power by whatever means necessary. They were outspoken, abrasive, and even violent, but during that day and age, those qualities were revered. Those were the qualities successful men had. However, as time marches on, many individuals argue that these heroes are undeserving of our adoration and/or attention because of their behavior. Are these people putting a modern filter on the actions of yesteryear and trying to reprehend history instead of embracing the past?

In today’s modern age, many of our traditional heroes are being attacked. Winston Churchill, the man heralded by many as the “man of the century,” is now criticized by his detractors as a racist. As a young lady, my father explained to me, “Had it not been for Winston Churchill, we would all be speaking German today.” Indeed, Churchill stood up to the tyrant Adolf Hitler, while his parliamentary contemporaries wanted to “sue for peace.” As a result, the Tory party replaced British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, with Winston Churchill, and with the support of the king and ultimately his party, Great Britain and the western world triumphantly defeated “the axis of evil.” Nevertheless, as many point out, Churchill had a dark side. “I hate Indians,” he once trumpeted. “They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” And so therein lay the contradiction-the man who dared stand up to Hitler, and galvanized the world to ultimately follow his lead, nevertheless did so by whatever means necessary. Should his success be belittled in today’s society because he would be deemed racist? Following this bandwagon, General Patton, a man instrumental in leading U.S. forces during WWII, is today criticized as a bad husband, an uncaring father, and insensitive to soldiers bludgeoned by war and inflicted with PTSD. Patton had a hard-driving personality and a strong disbelief in the medical condition “combat stress reaction,” also then called “shell shock.” Should his lack of compassion for the people around him discredit the success he had in the military?

It is not only men that are in danger of the scrutiny of today’s society. Eleanor Roosevelt is criticized by the LGBT community for being a closeted lesbian. Jacqueline Kennedy is criticized for truly achieving nothing except dressing well and “riding on the coattails of her husband.” Even the memory of the beloved Princess Diana is under siege. As a young lady, Princess Diana represented my role model of choice and is still significant in my life today. While navigating puberty, anxiety, depression, and teenage rebellion, my role model provided a much needed stabilizing factor. Today, her loving nature and forgiving heart are still ideals I try to emulate. My dreams and future plans are still influenced by her; indeed, even my vacations to Europe reflect her spirit. Without the role model of Princess Diana in my life, I would not be the person I am today. With all of this historical revision occurring, it is daring us to take a closer look at our heroes. Should we hold history to today’s standards?

The young girl who would listen to her father’s stories about the bravery of Winston Churchill is now a grown woman leading a digital marketing company. Shaped by the stories of my youth, and influenced by the role model of my choice, I am proud of who I am and what I have accomplished. The theme of my life has been greatly influenced by many of the traditional heroes of the past and present. Young men and women growing up in the contemporary world face a plethora of challenges. From broken families, and drug addiction, to other modern day stresses, traditional role models often provide an outline for how to live one’s life well. While this is most certainly a personal choice, one can argue that the very fabric of our society, and daresay, our being, is the result of stories passed down through the generations. In a world full of troubles, for many, they represent a beacon of light. If we destroy our heroes, one can argue that we have very little left. It can be said that everyone and everything has a dark side of some sort. No one is downy white, and the world comes in shades of gray. We would do well to remember this when judging those from the past with the ideals of today. I for one am willing to look past the dark side of my role models. Instead, I choose to look toward their inherent goodness and be aware that, like my role model, I too am inherently flawed… and for me, that is okay.

Transformation in the business atmosphere is integral for the growth of companies. Employees must inhabit an environment where they are valued, cared for, and their personal growth is at the forefront. By creating such an atmosphere, employees take care of the clients in a transformational manner. When new ideas are posed, innovation occurs, and employee turnover is minimal as well as the turnover of clients. However, in order for such an atmosphere to thrive, clients must be transformational also-meaning they want to employ the services offered to them in furtherance of a transformational environment for themselves and their clients. This is the key that makes the circle go “round and round.”

Clients typically cancel for the following reasons:

1. They feel the service they have purchased is not being provided to them as promised.
2. They do not see the value in what they have purchased.
3. They have found a company that can provide to them what they perceive to be a similar service at a lower price.

My fifteen years in the business world have taught me how to overcome the majority of these objections. For example, by creating a transformational business environment, one can attract and retain competent employees who, because they feel valued, in turn, value the clients of your company. The environment in which they work fosters one where everything promised to a client is delivered and more. This should, in theory, eliminate the objection of a client claiming they did not get what they had been promised.

The second objection of clients not seeing the value of what they have purchased is consistently overcome by staying in contact with clients and explaining to them the value and benefits of what they are receiving. This is achieved by maintaining the manpower necessary to visit clients on a regular basis, so they do not feel forgotten. I have learned that a “neglected client” is an unhappy client. No matter how much work you are doing behind the scenes, if a client does not see your face at least fairly regularly, the turnover of this client is inevitable.

The third objection, comprised of finding a company offering what is perceived as a comparable service at a lower rate, is also overcome by staying in contact and establishing value. When the return on investment is more than the initial expense, the service paid for itself, and that is the ultimate goal. Tying in with the second objection, the value must be established in order for clients to resist being tempted to go with what they perceive to be a cheaper solution. As we all know, something cheaper always exists, but simply and truly, you “get what you pay for.”

After all of these factors have been taken into consideration, and preemptively dealt with, why does client turnover still occur? As previously stated, the circle of transformation must be complete in order for it to accurately work, just like the wheel of a car will not perform properly if it has a hole. Quite simply, transformative businesses require transformative clients-that is, clients who want to employ your services in order to contribute to the transformative environment they are fostering for themselves, their employees, and, in turn, their own clients.

A strategic partner I have has said to me, “I have fired clients, and I have let clients expire, but rarely if ever do I take them to court. If they do not value what I am doing, I will let them go.” She has a point. As a transformational business person, we need to pick like-minded clients. If we do not, the struggle is almost not worth it.

Surprisingly, the royal family of England is an excellent example of a transformational “company.” The Queen of England provides a constantly evolving environment for her family and employees. The mere existence of Meghan Markle in the royal family is indicative of the family’s ability to adapt. Twenty years ago, a divorced American actress would have never perceived joining the royal family as a positive career move, much less a possible lifestyle choice. Megan has been given the opportunity to take on a royal role and make it her own. Of course, there are guidelines, but the restrictions placed upon her are no more than those placed upon individuals within a corporate environment. Without its transformational nature, the British monarchy would have been thrown out long ago. All businesses, in order to stay relevant, must evolve and change.

In conclusion, there are three main objections put forth by clients regarding cancellations. While transformational working environments can adequately overcome these objections, client turnover can still occur if the clients themselves are not as adaptive to change. A broken wheel cannot turn, and in order for the wheel of transformation to go “round and round,” both vendor and client must share this same philosophy. If they do not, then no amount of hard work or innovation can overcome client turnover. Just as the royal family of England has found regarding their own family and employees, businesses must have innovation and transformation in order to survive and thrive.

Why The Emotional Support of Family is Key to a Successful Business

Ten years ago I made a decision-a decision that would ultimately change the direction of my life forever. Rather than remaining in England and working as a broker, or moving to Chicago for a cushy job in a financial firm, I decided to forge my own path and start my own business. I would return to my roots in the publishing industry, and at the same time assist in taking care of my ailing grandmother.

My father, an entrepreneur, provided me a great deal of emotional support. My mother did also, suggesting she might come and stay with me for a while, to make sure I knew my way around town. My grandmother, now living in an assisted living facility, encouraged me to come and live in her home. In turn, I promised to assist in her care and visit her daily.

This plethora of family support provided me a much needed fountain of strength, especially when things became challenging. After difficult days in the field, overcoming objections and convincing people to participate in my project, I loved coming back to a grandmother and her friends who provided me with a respite from the stress of my daily working life.

It is important to understand that when one embarks on a new endeavor, stress levels can run high, even if the stress is positive. In the early days, I often thought of my childhood role model, Princess Diana, and how the lack of family support in her situation ultimately, albeit indirectly, led to her untimely death and to the end of what I like to call “Diana Inc.” Regarding her first official royal tour in Australia, Diana stated that when she heard people saying “Oh, she (Diana) (i)s on the other side,” Charles felt quite “low about it, instead of feeling happy and sharing it.” In response to what would ultimately become the theme of their entire marriage, Diana stated,

“It was isolating, but it was also a situation where you couldn’t indulge in feeling sorry for yourself: you had to either sink or swim. And you had to learn that very fast.” “And what did you do?” the reporter asked. “ I swam.”

She swam-for the next fifteen years-most of it alone. But ultimately, Diana quit, citing lack of support on the part of the Queen, The Queen Mother, and Prince Charles. Without their love and support, she simply could not carry on her duties. The way Diana reacted is not uncommon. In fact, more than half of all businesses fail.

One of the primary reasons cited by business owners for the reason business failure occurs is the lack of emotional support provided by family and friends. For me, this support has remained a key factor in my success. For example, I chose a spouse who supports me emotionally and encourages me in my work. I knew from Diana’s failure, that the choice of a supportive spouse would be a substantial key in my success. At one point, my husband made a financial investment in my business, citing his faith in my business acumen. Another time, when a partnership upon which I had embarked became distasteful, my husband provided loving guidance on how to buy out the partner’s shares. Through it all, he has remained my rock and given me much needed trust, support, and encouragement.

In a similar manner, when Lisa Halaby married King Hussein of Jordan, she stepped into unfamiliar territory, as an American Queen in a foreign country. Viewed with suspicion by the people of Jordan, she did not exactly experience a fantastic “homecoming.” However, with the loving and unwavering support of her husband, Lisa (now known as Queen Noor) opened an office, hired a staff, and began offering micro-financing loans to poor Bedouin women making handicrafts from home. Queen Noor set up consignment agreements with local shopkeepers, subsequently spawning an entire cottage industry of women able to support their families. When the occasional husband expressed jealousy in the success of his wife, King Hussein personally stepped in and told the men that they should be proud of their wives, just as had tremendous pride in his own wife. Queen Noor went on to be the most successful Queen in Jordan to date, helping more people economically than any other person in the history of the country. She always cited the loving support of King Hussein as the key to her success.

In conclusion, businesses fail for many reasons, but a major reason is the lack of family support provided to entrepreneurs. Being an entrepreneur can be a lonely, difficult road. The support of family and friends is a major factor in long-term success. As indicated by the failure of Princess Diana in her royal role, all the money in the world cannot make up for the lack of emotional support. I have succeeded because I received this support from loving parents, a wonderful grandmother, and a husband that believes in me above all else. As entrepreneurs embark on their journey, it is important to create an environment where this need is fulfilled, or the business is likely to ultimately fail.

Kavanaugh, Rules for Radicals, and the Politicalization of the Supreme Court

By Katherine Fry, CEO/President of Mediafy Communications

In the UK, the Queen does not answer to anyone in the government. Her Queenship is not dependant upon pandering to special interest groups or negotiating with members of political parties. She is anointed by God-not appointed by the people. Therefore, she is answerable only to God, and not to the people. One of the weaknesses in the United States’ political system is that a great part of its existence revolves around favors, personal agreements, and sometimes payoffs. A beacon of light within all of this potential chaos is the Supreme Court of the United States. Once appointed by the president, and confirmed by the Senate and Congress, Supreme Court members, like the Queen, are answerable only to God and their conscience. Their vote cannot be bought and they do not have to answer to anyone-they are on the court for life. However, this makes the process of confirming a candidate all the detrimental, since it is like entering into a marriage where divorce is not an option. You have to make sure the correct choice is made at the onset.

Brett Kavanaugh, on paper, looks like an ideal candidate. A cum laude graduate of Yale Law School, he has had a stellar career in the United States Judicial System. However, because of the partisan nature of the American Political System, he is a declared Republican. Removing politics from the equation, he has, for all accounts, turned to legal precedent and the constitution when deciding legal cases. He has also stated that he considers the landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade to be the settled law of the land.

Women in the United States have fought hard to establish their rights to vote, to own property, to have their income counted when applying for a loan, to have access to birth control, and to have reproductive rights. For some, this is a crusade, because they are afraid of the loss of these rights. For others, these rights are now simply part of their daily lives. Brett Kavanaugh, because he is a Republican, and arguably a conservative, represents a threat to many women who fear the loss of the reproductive freedoms women in the United States currently enjoy. In a confidential 2003 email, Kavanaugh states that he isn’t sure all legal scholars would agree that Roe v. Wade is the “settled law of the land,” and argues that the Supreme Court can “always overrule its precedent.” Contention regarding Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings began shortly after a former lawyer of George W. Bush turned over the email to the Senate Judiciary committee.

This is a pivotal time on the Supreme Court’s history, with four conservatives on the Supreme Court out of the total of nine. Another conservative on the court could potentially upset the balance, and lead to the possible appeal of Roe V. Wade. Kavanaugh’s confirmation, then, presents a problem.

Having been raised by a feminist woman of the 60’s, I do not take our rights for granted. I have been sexually harassed, and I have faced discrimination in the workplace. I am thankful to have the “right to choose.” I know the struggle for gender equality is real and ongoing and I identify as a feminist. However, when I see the accusations being leveled against Kavanaugh, it takes me back to a book I read in college called “Rules for Radicals,” written by Saul Alinsky. What is happening to Brett Kavanaugh is literally a play by play of what this book advocates.

Alinsky’s First Rule Is:

“Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”

If Kavanaugh is the enemy, then, according to Alinsky, we must scare him into thinking we have “information on him.” We must bring forward women he may or may not have known, and have them give testimony, real or imagined. Make him worry that more may appear. This may cause him to withdraw, to prevent any further damage to his reputation and career. Whether these women are telling the truth or not becomes irrelevant. The goal is to get him to step aside.

Rule Number Two Is:
“Never go outside the expertise of your people.”

An argument based upon the balance of the Supreme Court and its eventual repercussions regarding reproductive rights in America is arguably over the heads of many people, and a divisive one at that. Keeping the argument simple and dramatic is far more effective. Women coming forward and claiming molestation and potential rape is an offense to anyone, on the right or on the left. It garners popular support and gets you closer to the goal-having Kavanaugh step aside or not garnering enough bipartisan votes to be confirmed.

Rule Number Three:
“Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.”

If Kavanaugh is innocent of the charges levied against him, then he has no experience in the area of molestation or rape. He is a conservative Republican, married with children. He works every day and then goes home to his family. Having accusations levied against him such as these is completely foreign to him. Most likely, Kavanaugh was blindsided. As a result, his reactions are angry and emotional. This matter, and how to react to it, are “outside his airspace.” An emotional response to the accusations strengthens the enemy’s argument that he is dangerous and untrustworthy.

Rule Four:
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

Go back through Kavanaugh’s emails over the past 20 years and find something that does not agree with what he is saying now. Find old girlfriends who claim he misbehaved, creating a conflict with who he is now. bring into question the enemy’s credibility and reputation, creating more and more damage until all trust is gone.

Rule Five:
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

There is no doubt that Kavanaugh is facing ridicule. For what he is being accused of, there is no defense. Bringing up women from years ago when Kavanaugh was a minor, is arguably irrational but it is also infuriating. More importantly, it can also force the enemy into conceding. That is the goal with Kavanaugh. If the ridicule leads to him bowing out, then the “means was worth the end.”

Rule Six:
“A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”

Radical activists love nothing more than taking down a conservative Republican. Everyone avoids activities that are “un-fun”, but we all enjoy activities that bring results and actually work. Kavanaugh represents the stereotypical, privileged, conservative, pro-life male with a wife at home. What’s more entertaining than destroying him completely?

Rule Seven:
“A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”

The accusations against Kavanaugh and resulting testimony are quick and dirty. This whole thing might be over tomorrow. Moments like this keep activists excited, involved and constantly coming up with new tactics. It is a radical liberal’s dream come true because there’s almost instant satisfaction.

Rule Eight:
“Keep the pressure on. Never give up.”

Continue introducing new tactics to constantly keep the enemy off kilter. When the enemy addresses and conquers one approach, hit with another. Keep attacking from all sides, never allowing the enemy to rest, recoup, recover, or re-strategize. With Kavanaugh, once one woman is derided, another one appears. Once one email is addressed, another is produced. It is a never-ending cycle of attacks, with the goal of getting Kavanaugh to either not be confirmed or to quit first.

Rule Nine:
“The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”

In order to defeat Kavanaugh, radical activists have accused him of wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade. This worst-case scenario is contrary to what Kavanaugh himself has stated that, in his opinion, this is the settled law of the land. He has acknowledged that others may disagree and that the courts could overturn the landmark case. But he has indicated his intentions are not to do so. Nevertheless, because of a confidential 2003 email, he has become the face of forbidding abortion in America-the big bad white male who wants to take away reproductive rights for women. Imagination can lead to imaginary consequences, and fear of those imaginary consequences leads to confirmation hearing being delayed, just as we are seeing now with Kavanaugh.

Rule Ten:
“If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”

If more and more women come forward, detailing alleged instances of molestation and rape by Kavanaugh, even if it is not true, it could result in his nomination not being confirmed. The left then has a chance of getting a feminist pro-life candidate on the Supreme Court, swinging the pendulum in their favored direction. The ends justify the means.

Rule Eleven:
“The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”

The successful alternative, in this case, is a democratic, pro-life candidate. Who has not molested or raped any of his or her significant others? At this point, Kavanaugh has been portrayed so poorly, that just about anyone without a love life appears better.

Rule Twelve:
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

Branding Kavanaugh as a molester and rapist cuts off his support network and isolates him from sympathy. It is easier and more effective to attack Kavanaugh personally, then to attack the Roe v. Wade issue directly. People fall faster than institutions. This may be cruel, but it is very effective, and it gets the job done.

In conclusion, Brett Kavanaugh may or may not be in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade, but the fear of him doing so has resulted in a play by play of “Rules for Radicals”. As a feminist in favor of reproductive rights for women, and one schooled in the methods used by radicals, I am more than aware of the tactics being used against Kavanaugh and why they are being used. But the bigger question remains; are we as Americans, pro-life or not, willing to sit by and watch a man’s life get destroyed because of the mere possibility that he might sway our Supreme Court in a conservative direction?