On occasion, I've read Mark Morford write about all the violence surrounding religion, and his descriptive name-calling of every visible aspect of religious protest is quite entertaining.

You might not like him bashing Christianity (or other religion) and their angry and violent tendencies. But, then, it could really be quite normal for him to respond that way to anything God-related. His religious preference must dictate such a response. Yes, religious. Religion has more to do with God. It is a philosophy of life, love and justice. And Mark's thoughts are just as religious as those of Bob Jones or Osama Bin Laden.

Mark writes under the assumption that his belief system is supreme because it has the ability to judge all other faiths based its own philosophies. He might justify his faith because it may not have a name, but it is just as much a belief system as any orthodox church. He criticizes them because they are fighting and bashing other faiths or those without faith. Mark's "faith" is no different from Christianity, or Islam. His rage against zealotry is just as judgmental as a fire and brimstone sermon from a revival pulpit's call to repentance.

Should Muslims faithful to their division of Islam be obligated to follow its precepts? Are Christians also required to do as they feel God has lead them? Should religious factions fight for what is right in the sight of their God? Should Mark be so critical of them all? If he is going to faithful to whatever he puts his faith in, absolutely.

The question is, what does he believe? That all religion is evil, or maybe that all religions are equally valid? Do all belief systems lead to some form of heaven, even if it is on earth? If so, none of them are worth the value of a plugged nickel.

If there is such a thing as truth; if there really is one answer to the arithmetic query two plus two; then any intelligent look at religion must actually look for the answer to the question, What is truth, and if the evidence leads to it, Who, Where, What is God? But, few people do that. Instead, they attack from whatever vantage points random events or their culture have lead them to.

The implication seems to be that religion leads to fanaticism, and that in itself is a judgment against religion. If that is so, it is just as appropriate for atheism, humanism, or whatever faith it is that worships the unknown god.

There is one advantage to being a Christian. That is the idea that God can take care of Himself. He doesn't need some devoted follower to strap himself with a string of bombs and blow up a shopping mall of infidels, because someone name a teddy bear after Him. That's idiotic. Or, at least that's my belief.

A meeting today sent me abruptly back to Dilbert's World. Much earlier in my career, I was impressed by one company that considered me for a job and actually had a group interview. I believe there were three people asking me questions. What impressed me was they seemed to build on each other, almost as if they had planned it. Besides the fact that it was more comfortable, the interview wouldn't have been as well done with a single person doing it.

Meetings like that are the things that drive a successful company or organization. Expertise from several perspectives will give you a better picture of any issue. Each perspective, if from a knowledgeable professional, can add to the picture and address issues from that vantage point.

Just having group meetings because that's the way to do it, is a totally different thing. The meeting I was in today, for example, began with showmanship and ended in mass confusion. Besides myself, there were 3 other staff members and 3 representatives of a vendor. They didn't know enough about what facts they needed to gather to present their proposals. That didn't prevent them from trying to show off what they knew, or thought they knew about their area. Instead of creating a picture from multiple perspectives, they created a maze.

Early in the meeting, there was an official opening by the department head, about what he wanted and want possibilities were in the future. Then he left. A few minutes into the meeting the discussions started to break down, as several people wanted to be heard. Soon everyone was paired off with someone else in separate discussions. It wasn't a round table, but it was definitely a circus.

After the first round of discussions started coming to the end and each of the three had thought they had everything figured out, the group meeting started back up, with each team correcting others in the meeting. Papers were shuffled, and some of those conclusions were challenged and corrected, supposedly. As we adjourned, there was a blank look on the faces of the vendor representatives as they began to question what they had learned.

The biggest obstacle to cognizant communication is showmanship. Not only does showmanship often hinder the exchange of information, I repeatedly heard participants exchanging misinformation as they tried to impress others in the meeting. I've never been much of a fan of committees and meetings. Occasionally, or maybe, on rare occasions, you have something to learn from the input of several different people. On most occasions, however, group discussions create confusion, not clarity, and the more people you involve, the more confusion.

I've been reading Dilbert for years, and see the comics played out everyday on and off the job, but it boggles the mind why companies organize such demonstrations by several people with titles and college degrees, when they could allow one intelligent person to solve a problem. In fact, I had prepared for this meeting and had arrived with all the documentation and plans that they needed, and just waited for someone to request it. As is often the case, they were so clueless, they didn't know what questions to ask. Successful solutions require a clear view of the problem, otherwise the solution is meaningless to them, so I kept quiet. That's actually a biblical concept. "Don't throw pearls to swine, or valuables to dogs." (Matt 7:6, my paraphrase)

Fortunately, I was able to make a few corrections later in the day as I talked to one of the most cognizant of the members. Unfortunately, after more meetings and the plans are in place, they will discover that there are still lots of missing pieces. And there will surely be more meetings for that. Hmmm. I wonder if Wally made a fresh pot of coffee. I think I understand his complacency more every day.

While I love the humor of incompetent management, I much prefer excellence in whatever you're doing. So, here's one tip for you. If you are going to have a meeting, have at least one person preside over it that is prepared and that knows what is going on. He should be able to put together information from the other participants, if they know anything about their area of expertise. Just because you have a group meeting doesn't guarantee successful solutions. In fact, the more people, the more confusion. If it involves vendors trying to sell something, that may be a good thing, for them, not you.

I visited a new family practice physician earlier in the week, and found the trip to be, well, interesting. This is not going to be a recommendation, in either direction, but some thoughts you might consider. I can't make recommendations because I didn't require any treatment. The physician just did the routine doctor checkup.
The practice, Short Family Medical Group, is in a very new office. During its construction, I drove by there on the way to church every Sunday, and only noticed people had started moving in the last couple months.

Electronic Records
One of my first observations was the use of an electronic medical record system. I saw that when I first made the appointment, and then during the visit. That's cool, I thought, although when I reviewed a printout of my basic information, I noticed that the spacing of the information didn't allow much room for making corrections. With forms analysis being one of my specialties, I had mixed emotions about all that. I know it takes time to develop, but it can be done, should be done before software is deployed.
At my previous doctor's office, I had similar thoughts about the way the hand-written forms were formatted, so it's apparently a common problem. The computer system was networked and there was a computer available during the exam. During my time in that little room, as Seinfeld once described it, the doctor and nurse appeared very comfortable with the system, although at one time, one of them had to repeatedly click an OK button before it would close. I could see "Not Responding" in the window title bar, but it did eventually close. The problem there could be either software, networking or hardware. In any case, EMR is still somewhat new, so it's hard to know (especially for someone that's not computer savvy) where to go for a good package. But, they are on the right track, and in the top 10-20% that have adopted EMR.

Web site.
Throughout the visit I checked the cards, forms and such, and found no mention of a web site. It's a new business, so that could be in the plans. With the ridiculously low cost of creating a site, I think every business should have one. I'm not talking about just an on-line advertisement. A web site, in my opinion, should be a source of information. Not just about the facility, but information that might augment whatever service they office at the store front.

How fast is too fast?
For a new business, this seemed to be a busy practice, but apparently efficient. The staff covered all the bases for insurance, release of records, and such. The doctor was also pretty quick, and somewhat efficient. She was doing things while she was asking questions. But, then, all practices seem to operate that way. If you have a problem, you have to be quick to let them know what's on your mind. Apparently they are trained to ask specific, pointed questions and not allow the patient to start a conversation.
One of my previous physicians is now retired and volunteers at a non-profit clinic. He's shared that one of the things he enjoys is he gets to spend more time with the patient. So, maybe, the quickness of an examination is how it's done now. I was impressed that this new doctor did come back to see me before I left, though she could have left me with a nurse. It will be interesting to see how this practice develops.

Tests
The reason I was seeing the doctor was to get prescriptions refilled, and that was handled without a problem, and to get routine blood tests. A former physician used to discuss with me what tests I need to get, and my treatment options. I missed that.
I had a handwritten list of tests I wanted to get done, and some notes on other things, but didn't get a chance to present it. They did take blood for tests, but I won't know what tests until I get the results. My list was pretty standard, so they may all be on there. CBC, CMP (metabolic), Lipids, Thyroid, and PSA.
I was somewhat surprised that this doctor also wanted to get an EKG. There is a history of heart disease in my family but other than mild asthma, I'm in excellent health.

Details
That brings up another pet peeve I have. With some exceptions, doctors don't tell you how you did on a test, other than to say you are okay. I don't want to hear that my PSA is okay, or my HDL is borderline. I want to know the numbers. I like details. I suppose that all goes back to the idea of education, and why it's one of the concerns of JCAHO. Other than the 2-3 hours a year that I'm in a doctor's office, I want/need to be in control of my health. In fact, if I hadn't taken control of my health 20 years ago, I may not be here, but that's another entry.
I did get the results today and it does have all the gory details. Yes, the results look fine according to the doctor, so I am still healthy. But by looking at the numbers I see that I am back at the Cholesterol border. With Thanksgiving meals and now Christmas parties, I'm not surprised. With LDL a little high, low HDL, and high Triglycerides, I have some work to do. It's always easy to head them off before they get across the border.
I'm not alone with that obsession. "People today aren’t satisfied with just being told 'everything is fine'.... They want to know the exact number and what it means." So says Jim Nichols PhD., who directs the Clinical Chemistry Laboratory and Point-of-Care Testing at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, MA.

Doctor's Orders
I didn't really get any orders from this doctor. We will see the next visit. She did say she wanted to set up some breathing tests, something that was already on my list.
Now, you may like being ordered around, but I'm not that way, at least not at work, home or at the doctor's office. I'm the kind of person that wants to know why, and to have options. There are options in treatment, and rather than depending on the physician to weigh the options, I would like to know what they are.
The main reason I'm seeing a new doctor was my previous doctor decided to change the treatment for my asthma, even though it has been effective for several years and there were no contraindications. With the options that he gave me, I also got an ultimatum. Again, that's another entry.

Choosing a doctor
So, why this doctor? Knowing which doctor to go to can be challenging. When I started looking for a new physician, I first checked the insurance provider list. In the list, I narrowed it down to physicians that were boarded. From that list, I mentally eliminated physicians that were part of one of the hospitals. Then from that very short list I selected a new practice.

Independent
I eliminated physicians that were not associated with a hospital because I wanted to support someone dedicated to the health care of individual patients.
The all under one roof super-market approach to health care doesn't appeal to me. It has a nice ring, but it's misleading. The physicians there work for the hospital. An independent physician has a lot more freedom to decide what works for me, and a successful independent won't be forced to leave the system by some administrative order.
Our society is driven too much by big business and big government, and that couldn't be more true than in the health care industry.

I've written about Job Search Issues before and ideas about using information technology to improve business. Two weeks ago, I got another reminder of how inadequate management philosophies can be. When I applied for a job at Trinity Mother Frances, I was redirected to a third party site where I could apply and upload the text of my resume. So, that's what I started to do. I didn't have time to complete it, so I saved what I had and was going to come back later. When I later returned I found (as I expected) that I could neither view or edit my application.

The TMFHS job search site was formatted like the other Trinity Mother Frances sites, but it is actually at healthcaresource.com. From it, you only have the options to search or apply for a posted job. If you know something about URLs, you could edit the address and go directly to healthcareresource.com, and on that site submit your resume to that site, not something that you'd find out from the Trinity Mother Frances site.

Trinity Mother Frances has replaced effective administrative policy with philosophy. From one perspective, they have adopted the religious belief that a company can benefit by going paperless, but they sidestepped the proper implementation of a system that brings this about. By replacing HR with an inadequate system to manage applications, they are limiting their ability to acquire, evaluate and hire competent personnel.

From a different vantage point, you can see their adoption of yet another philosophy; that companies can usually save money by outsourcing when possible. On the contrary, if you have enough volume to do a particular task in house, and you have the capital to implement it, you save money by doing it in-house. In many cases, the capital investment can be returned by the saving in a year or two. The precondition is that the inside operation is properly managed. There are many issues involved in outsourcing, but the same management that mismanages the internal department will very likely mismanage the outsource efforts. If the operation is maintained using outsource contracts, there is a whole set of additional issues.

There are experts publishing management advice and philosophies on a daily basis, in the areas of Finance, Supply Chain Management, IT, Human Resource management, and Records Management. Some of it may be quite good, but when organizations attempt to implement cutting edge ideas without first understanding and applying the basics, there is certain to be chaos.

It's like your first love, when you were more in love with being "in love" than the boy or girl you met. So many of our administrators are more possessed with the latest buzzword or acronym than they are in understanding what it really means and how it can be successfully implemented. It's just something they can sell to the next level of management and make themselves look good. That couldn't be more true with the latest "paperless" craze, with companies going full steam ahead scanning all their existing documents into their computers.

Using technology to manage information is a good thing, if it's done right. If not, it can be a nightmare. Technology is just another tool. There really is no substitute for prudent management.

A week ago I was referred to an article on sfgate.com (The San Francisco Chronicle). Since then, I've enjoyed reading many of the columns in that paper. It's been almost two and a half decades, but when I lived in San Francisco, I enjoyed reading the Chronicle. I know; There are liberal leanings of that publication. From an area that has become the mecca of the homosexual movement, it is certain to reflect the area's interests. But there are some truths in it that need to be broadcast.

First, a little about my political leanings. I am a Republican and I don't anticipate ever voting for a Democrat or Libertarian, but I do believe that the Republican party today is essentially a Big Business party. So, the choice of one or the other is often the foundation of the average citizen's political leanings. And, not just political, but in every fabric of society. While you may think that Big Business is better than Big Government of the Democratic party, the way I see it, there is no difference. To misquote a popular truism, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely whether in the hands of Big Business or Big Government."

While I am tempted to develop on that, what I want to point out is how individuals with two diametrically opposed world views can view and agree upon the same evidence. What I am talking about here is based on an article by Mark Morford titled, "Black Friday Die Die Die" This is the kind of article that I would have loved to written, or at least started. He essentially points out the commercialism of Black Friday, and by reference, of this country. Mark then bemoans the effects of our indulgence on the energy crisis. Al Quida could also have started this article and ended with its call for destruction of the nation. A Christian might point out a need for repentance. We may be able to agree on all the evidence, and recognize all the problems, but it is our worldview that determines what we think and do about them.

One of the author's consolations went this way, "There was only one thing left to do. We both raised our wine glasses for a humble toast to the belief that man is, at heart, a deeply benevolent creature."

Ironically, that humanistic philosophy is what has brought us to this point. Our self indulgence has been bred into us by an increasingly self indulgent society, parenthood, government. Not only has that self-indulgence brought about the rabidity, it is at the heart of many of the things that Mark has bemoaned in the past.

While we can hope, beyond all reason, that it will all work out, I'm not satisfied with that perspective. Yes, I agree that our consumerism is out of hand. I'm not afraid to agree with him, and many of our more radicals, about quite a lot of things.

I may actually do the same things that Mark proposes, for many of the same reasons, but my Christian worldview goes further to recognize the sovereignty of God; I know that God will do what He wants. I take comfort in knowing that He will do what He needs to do. Not only that, I know a little about His plan. Yep, according to the New Testament, the world will be burned up. But, also according to the New Testament, God will renew it.

In a town hall meeting at work yesterday, there was a big announcement, "We bought software". I don't even remember what it was for, but it did have a special purpose. As I listened to the announcement of all the big plans, I grinned. I find those kinds of things amusing because of the trend toward turn-key systems. The humor is multi-fold.

XYZ Systems.
On the web sites of two of the educational institutions in Tyler (UTHCT is not included), there are ads for IT personnel that have been running for months. The ads are for IT professionals with experience with some odd software package they've turned the key for. Except for some key software packages, there is very little formal training for turn-key software. Considering the number of packages available for every function in business, there is a severe limitation trying to hire someone that knows that package. And, if you understand the law of supply and demand, you understand the potential cost involved when you think you must have someone with XYZ experience. The biggest irony is that both of these institutions have IT departments, but I doubt either of them has even a class on the XYZ package.
It's like a brand name, that companies will boast about much like they might take so much pride in their Beamer, Caddie, or Lexus. They have little clue to what they have other than the brand that some car dealer impressed them with.

Opening the Box.
The second laugh has to do with the expectations that administrative leaders have. At first they think enthusiastically, we have a package that will do all we need. It is only after installation that they discover all the shortcomings, all the things that will cost more money. At the other end of the installation, when original personnel have left, they think that they have to hire someone with experience with that package. The sad thing is that there is some truth in that. Fewer and fewer people have the ability to learn more than a few new things.

Training and Maintenance.
At UT Health Center, we've gone through several installation and training programs for whatever new package they adopted. It is a time-consuming and expensive process, although the package itself is supposed to be turn-key. Some of our supply item numbers have changed four or five times, because that turn-key application doesn't know how to use the existing data. In reality, most data can be carried over into a new system, if they know how or will take the time to do it. I know because I've done quite a lot of data conversion.

The tower of Babel.
One of the problems I've seen with multiple turn-key packages is that they don't talk to each other. Networked software (i.e. SQL Server) has been around for a decade that enables multiple departments in a corporation to securely share data. Yet, there may be multiple employee or student databases on a campus, each for a different thing and each having to be updated when there is a change.

A REAL IT Staff.
Real programmers use Edlin. That was voiced in jest a few years ago. While I do know how to use Edlin, the point is that a real IT department needs to have people that have been adequately trained. They need a staff with a broad knowledge of industry software, that is general purpose and can be employed to do a number of tasks, and that have the skills to use those tools. There are specialties, of course, but most IT departments, seem to be filled with people with limited specialized skills. They might know POISE, or MEDITECH, or some other turnkey program, but have no clue about networking, or database administration. There may be some educational shortcomings, but much of that is due to the focus of the company itself.

Real qualifications for an IT job should include, languages, protocols, standards of the industry, not proprietary software. Very often, for a business the size of these colleges, software can be written to accommodate the needs of the institution. They don't because the leadership of these departments are incapable of developing plans for such a project.

In the end, this all points to the idiocy in many of our institutions and corporations. Very often administrators' only skills involve giving orders, acting authoritative, knowing how to buy stuff. If you know how to buy stuff, you have a future.

This month's Mensa newsletter includes an article by Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist, where he writes about
AMERICAN KIDS, DUMBER THAN DIRT? with the subtitle,
Warning: The next generation might just be the biggest pile of idiots in U.S. history.

I've suspected a dumbing down in society for many years, but in the last five years or so, I've become fully persuaded that much of society is either corrupt, incompetent or just plain lazy. I see it at the UT Health Center at Tyler, where I've worked for a decade now, and at other institutions of higher learning. In education from K though MBA, the focus is on generating revenue and securing the institution, not educating.

Degrees are not so much a reflection of what you've mastered as they are of what you've paid for. Business and administrative policy at many levels is more philosophical than professional. Many of the practices I see in business now, don't just ignore the basic principles in their field, they contradict them. People rely on the power of persuasion that they developed as a teenager, and don't even see the importance of what is right or wrong, smart or not.

Our economy is driven by finance and salesmanship. As a society, we are living on borrowed and stolen money. Other than some key industrial companies, very few businesses exist to actually produce anything, but sales. The producers are living in countries like China and Indonesia. Our nation is driven by a "perception" of wealth that doesn't exist, either in the stock market, banking, politics or salesmanship. We don't know how poor we are.

The new generation of idiocy is a little bit of a shock, but outside of some catastrophic awakening, it's inevitable. Contrary to principles of evolution, we aren't evolving. Instead, physical, spiritual and mental atrophy is taking over, leading to our degradation. We are so distracted, that we can't focus on anything. The current cell phone craze is actually contributing to our inability to communicate effectively, and we think we are so smart.

There are theological reasons for this. When Adam sinned, he was promised death, and 4000 years later the scripture still promises that the wages of sin would be death. It's not just that we will eventually die, but we will live or die spiritually based on our response to God's law. Nor does it stop with the spiritual. It continues with our mental capacities. The world is filling up with people that are brain-dead, and it is even God's intention to give them over to a depraved mind.

It's a principle that pervades all of life. Individuals, companies, and governments live and die based on how they approach truth, physically, spiritually and mentally. We can't pick and choose what type of truth we want to embrace. Anything but full truth is a deception. The only thing that may help us out of this quicksand may be that catastrophic awakening.