We should pause to reflect on the solemn day fifteen years ago in 2001 when al-Qaeda terrorists attacked on US soil, killing 2,996 innocent people and injuring over 6,000 more.

The 9-11 attacks created nearly 9,000 real victims because no one deserved, or could have reasonably expected, such a hateful and diabolical act. We know that Osama bin Laden blamed the attacks on all of America, vilifying “all those who participate in, or help the Jewish occupiers in killing Muslims.” No matter what your position may be on the Middle East, there is no reasonable justification for al-Qaeda killing and injuring American civilians in a sneak-attack without provocation by US forces.

Yet some plagued with victim mentality have attempted to blame 9-11 on the unfairness of America’s position in the world. A purple-haired history professor teaching Women’s & Gender Studies classes at Saddleback College in California is one such blamer. In 2001, she supported a statement blaming 9-11 on American “imperialism” — which is code for feelings of jealousy over America’s “unfair” wealth and strength as compared to other countries — and she recently tore down “Never Forget” 9-11 memorial posters because she said they were not “approved” (I guess she doesn’t believe in the First Amendment right to Freedom of Expression).

She is obviously a kook, but the lesson to be learned is this: With freedom comes purveyors of kooky ideas. If we’re too “polite” or “politically correct,” to call them out and say they are not valid, they can seep into college campuses and potentially be accepted by young, impressionable minds – especially at our institutions of higher learning, where students are rewarded with good grades the regurgitation of whatever the professor professes, not critical thinking.

The victim mentality is strong and we need to be aware of it. At least today — in honor of those lost in 9-11 and those who loved them — let’s utilize critical thinking and call out the kooks who find any way they can to say that Islamic terrorists are somehow the “victims.”



Sympathy or Pity

The other day I met another lawyer at a restaurant for a drink after work to talk business. While making my way through the bar in my chair, I saw several people I knew. As I stopped to say hello to one — yet another damned lawyer — her friend remarked after meeting me, “It’s nice to see you getting out.” That always cracks me up. So I said, “Yeah, the work-release program at the prison is great.” The confused and then worried look on his face was priceless, but after letting him squirm a few seconds I let him off.

I get that kind of comment fairly often, but it makes me wonder about not only the perception of paralyzed folks but also the motivation for saying something like “it’s nice to see you getting out.”

First of all, I understand that there are probably lots of paralyzed folks who don’t have the motivation, the means, or the business and social life to cause them to undertake the bit of extra effort it takes to get out. But I made the choice long ago to live life as fully as I would if I hadn’t broken my neck, and to never feel sorry for myself for the fact that I’m just a little inconvenienced because I can’t walk or use my hands on my way to accomplishing everything I want to.

I’m pretty sure I “get out” more often than that guy, but he somehow felt sorry for me. He wanted to know why I’m in the chair, and when he asked, I told him, “I’m just lazy.” Again a momentary bewildered look. But by then he had figured out that I was teasing him. So after I told him the real reason was breaking my neck in a diving accident, he asked, “How long have you been in the wheelchair?” And I told him, “Since about 7:00 a.m.” After I toyed with him, he may have started to figure out that he needn’t feel sorry for me.

He was a nice guy and he likely just had empathy or sympathy for what he thought must be a difficult or unhappy life for me. But little did he know my life rocks — probably in ways he hasn’t yet experienced — even though it’s a little more difficult than before I broke my neck.

I always wondered why people feel compelled to share with someone they’ve just met their empathy or sympathy for them. It’s like they are unwittingly playing the “victim-card” for the target of their empathy or sympathy.

I’ve come to believe that if we let people feel sorry for us, we start to feel sorry for ourselves. And though I sometimes feel sorry for others because their lives seem to be plagued with “suckitude,” I choose not to let them know I feel sorry for them (beyond simple condolences for the loss of a loved one, etc.). That’s because I don’t want to enable any victim mentality by providing any reason to think their situation or life is “unfair.” But it’s also because I try not to pity anyone. When we “pity” others we don’t really respect them because we don’t think they can handle their own particular adversity and live happy, rewarding lives. We don’t seek out people we pity, to ask their advice or include them at parties (except maybe as a token). We don’t want to be like the people we pity.

I’ve lived the past 31 years in a way that says “don’t ever feel sorry for me” and that has paid off big-time in numerous ways. Though my life might be a little harder, and though people might have a hard time believing it, my life is awesome!


It’s tempting to tell people what they want to hear.

Whether it’s that their goofy new haircut looks “nice,” or that they are “right” when they clearly are wrong, it seems compassionate and kind to make people feel better.

Somehow, it’s become so commonplace to agree with people and tell them what they want to hear, that to tell people the truth is considered “offensive” or “politically incorrect.” There is social pressure to affirm or validate ridiculous thinking and people feel like they are “victims” when they are corrected because there is this widely accepted notion that “every opinion is valid.”

Besides being an absolutely inane concept, the “every opinion is valid” narrative is also destructive. When people are not subject to the normal socialization of being called out when they are goofy or unreasonable, they are not subject to the normal boundaries of society. This can lead to false perceptions of the world and to bad decision-making.

For example, telling someone that their hideous shirt looks nice on them, just to make them feel good, could distort their perceptions and may cause them to make more decisions that do not present them in the best light. Similarly (but with more impact), telling someone that they are right when they are not can distort their perception of reality and may cause them to make bad business or life decisions.

We don’t have to be nasty jerks to be honest. When someone asks our opinion about their shirt we don’t say, “You look ridiculous! You have terrible taste!” We say something like, “It’s not your best look, I’d go with something else.” Similarly, when someone asks if they are right when they are wrong, we can tactfully explain the error in their thinking rather than tell them they are being “absurd!”

It may be easier to tell people what they want to hear, but it isn’t kind. And it’s actually selfish. We tell people what they want to hear because we want them to like us.

But, while it’s harder to tell people what they need to hear, it is more valuable and is the stuff of true friendships. I would much rather have true friends who are honest with me than fake friends who tell me what I want to hear.

And that’s the kind of friend I try to be. If you feel the same way, feel free to share this.


Excuse Machines

In addition to my work in mergers & acquisitions, my law practice allows me a unique opportunity to solve problems for people. I am the “fixer” and I am good at what I do. Although not involved in any criminal activity, I am kind of like “the Wolf” from the movie Pulp Fiction.

Before doing what I do now, many years ago I started and built an employment litigation practice for a small law firm and then built my own employment and business litigation practice for more than 20 years. As part of that practice, I had the opportunity to help people whose employers had acted unlawfully. It felt good to help people who had really been screwed.

But I also saw a troubling tendency. The ability to sue one’s employer gave people a readily available excuse to blame (“discrimination”), and play the “victim” for their own unacceptable job performance.

I received lots and lots of calls from people saying they were “discriminated against” when they were fired. When I would ask what actions of the employer led them to believe the motivation for termination was discrimination, more often than not, the answers were things like:

“Because I am black,” or

“Because I am old,” or

“Because I am a woman,” etc.

It was amazing how many people assumed anything they felt was “unfair” must be because of “discrimination” (often from the same person who hired them). Yet they could not relate even the slightest indication that the employer was motivated by the person’s race, age, sex … or any other illegitimate reason for their firing. And for those who could convey some basis for their belief that there was some discriminatory motivation, their stories would often fall apart upon further inquiry. Too often, it became readily apparent that their biggest problem was their substandard work or their caustic personality that made them not worth keeping around. But they couldn’t see their problem because they felt like victims as a result of a convenient scapegoat to blame. Eventually, I decided not to take any more employment cases because I didn’t want to enable that kind of victim mentality.

Where there is ready-made blaming for results we don’t like, it is tempting to take advantage of an excuse so that we don’t have to blame ourselves. It is even more tempting to blame others when playing the victim is rewarded through comfort in woundedness – whether that comfort comes in the form of attention, sympathy, control, or “vindication” by way of money from a lawsuit.

Though there are definitely some genuine cases of discrimination and other situations in which people are taken advantage of, most situations I saw were employers who just wanted to run a business with good people and they didn’t care what color, age, sex, or whatever their employees were. Too often I saw people blaming the loss of their job on something other than the fact that they were not a valuable employee, and I refused to enable that kind of self-destructive behavior.

Now I get to help people solve real problems … like negotiating tough deals.


Key and Peele are a couple of funny guys who happen to be black.

In their comedy sketches, they utilize black stereotypes to bring laughter to the world.

In this hilarious little video they poke fun at the names black people give their kids

(NSFW because of some language).

The sketch is funny because it’s based on a cultural difference that’s not hateful or degrading.

What’s sad is that some have come to believe that the stereotype is “racist” because it deals with race. But it neither promotes hatred nor suggests that any race is superior or inferior, so it’s not racist.

Somehow we’ve come to believe that all stereotypes are “hurtful.” It’s a mindset we’ve been force-fed for decades.

Social scientists tell us that stereotypes are based on “empirical generalizations.” There is a generalization about paralyzed people that does not hurt me one bit. If I don’t live in a way so as to distinguish myself from the generalization, then (by definition) it is accurate in the mind of whomever holds the stereotype about me.

What do I care if someone has a generalization they apply to me inaccurately (or accurately)? I am not a child or incompetent. I do not need to be protected from inaccurate perceptions. To see me as something else — as needing protection — would be to treat me as a lesser.

No one is a “victim” of stereotypes unless you believe the generalization that people are incapable of seeing someone as distinct from, or an exception to, a generalization (let that sink in a while).

But even worse, if you believe that certain groups are more “harmed” by stereotypes, wouldn’t that also be a generalization? And because the world operates on, and is full of, generalizations, wouldn’t the belief that certain groups are more harmed by generalizations — thereby needing protection from stereotypes — be treating them as lesser?

In my mind, everyone with their wits about them is fair game for poking fun. To say otherwise is to treat as lesser those who are excepted.

I prefer to make fun of everyone equally – including myself.


Life can get messy.

Just when things seem to be going along great, we sometimes have issues arise that upset our worlds. Things that make us feel overwhelmed make us feel that way because they remind us that we are not in control. And that’s unsettling because it makes us feel like we are victims of circumstance (whether of our own doing or someone else’s).

Although the unsettling and overwhelming things are often surprises, I’ve found it helps to plan that life is just going to be messy at times. I am a fixer so I get busy cleaning up the messes, but it’s less overwhelming when I expect that there will be unforeseen bumps along the way – things I cannot control.

Even more helpful is to focus on the one thing that I can always control 100% – and that thing is my attitude. No matter how messy or how bumpy life gets, I can choose how to handle it.

When I consciously choose to compare my messes with those who have far worse troubles, when I choose to stop worrying about unfairness because my messes are no less fair than anyone else’s, and when I choose to find ways to take responsibility for my messes, I stop thinking like a victim.

And then—even amidst the messiness—I find all kinds of reasons to be grateful and to be happy.



What We Want

What makes us want what others have?

Competition plays a part. Feelings of “fairness” and envy have roles too.

I’ve noticed that lots of people get bothered by the “unfairness” when someone drives past where everyone else is trying to merge onto the highway and gets several cars ahead in line. That doesn’t bother me one bit. The guy might reach his destination a few seconds faster than me. So what? Even if it’s a full minute or two faster, it’s not worth getting frustrated or perturbed about (and it’s actually better for traffic-flow when not everyone is trying to jam in at the same place).

I rarely let anyone else affect my attitude. It’s the one thing over which I have absolute control. And it’s all about choices.

Do you wish you had someone else’s house, vacations, or income? I see clients and have friends with a lot of money. Having more doesn’t make them any happier than me. In fact, great wealth often brings its own problems. And I don’t know many people, richer or poorer, who are happier. I have learned how to be happy with whatever I have.

Again, it’s all about choices (and it involves choosing gratitude).

Even though I’m very competitive, I choose not to compare or to care about others getting or having more (even when it’s “undeserved”). When I want something more, I try to work harder or smarter. A very wise man (my father) gave me great advice when I was a young boy that stuck with me. He said,

“There will always be people with more than you and there will always be people with less. It doesn’t do you any good to compare yourself with others – compare yourself with your potential.”

When we do compare to others and feel like it’s “unfair,” we are choosing envy because we are choosing to “compare up” – that is, only comparing with those who have more, because if you’re reading this online there are literally hundreds of millions of people who have less. How “fair” is that?

Helen Keller (who I think was in the same graduating class with my father) once said,

“Instead of comparing our lot with that of those who are more fortunate than we are, we should compare it with the lot of the great majority of our fellow men. It then appears that we are among the privileged.”

And I’m pretty sure I’ve read somewhere that covetousness and envy are not necessarily “best practices.”

Maybe, just maybe, the “shalt nots” are not as much about limiting us but more about directing our choices for our own good … perhaps to find a peace that surpasses all understanding.

New Perspectives

This attempting to share different perspectives thing is tricky.

While I try to impart things I’ve garnered through a situation that I thought would leave me miserable, it’s not easy to convince people to consider new ways of seeing the world.

The counterintuitive nature of the new perspectives can disrupt worldviews that are influenced by popular narratives we all hear. I know that, for me, modifying my own worldview does not come easy.

Thursday’s, Friday’s, and Saturday’s posts are good examples of different perspectives on popular mindsets that took me a while to reach. But though I take issue with some common beliefs, I do not mean to be critical of those who’ve accepted them. It occurred to me that in laying out the reasons for rejecting those mindsets, some may take umbrage with my assertions.

It is not at all my intent to deride anyone who has not yet considered the different perspectives I advocate. My goal is only to get people to think about things in a slightly different way, and that requires challenging current narratives. I’m attempting to do that in a positive manner.

It is my sincere hope (and prayer) that, by sharing the things I’ve discovered over a difficult (but wonderful) journey which have led me to startling happiness, my posts can help enrich others’ lives.

That would make me even happier.


Aretha Franklin’s 1967 hit song Respect is one of my favorites.

But have you noticed that the concept of respect has dramatically changed since 1967? It used to be that respect was something obtained through reputation or position, whether as a parent, a judge, the President, or whatever … it was earned. Nowadays it’s popular to think (or say) that respect is something that “everyone” is entitled to, regardless.

But is it?

Was Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist infamy entitled to respect? How about Bernie Madoff, O.J. Simpson, or Adolph Hitler? What about pedophiles, or that obnoxious neighbor who enjoys making people miserable? Is the politician you despise entitled to “respect?”

There is a difference between respect and civility. The cultural norms in a civil society encourage “civility” for all by discouraging violent, aggressive, rude, obnoxious, and offensive behavior. But, traditionally (and rightly), the normative standards of civil interaction do not impose unearned “respect.”

For a while, it was popular to believe that self-esteem was something that could be provided by others. But it can’t – it has to be earned and comes from within. Dignity is a respect of self, and respect is something that must be earned. The protect-feelings-at-all-costs theory did no favors for the maladjusted kids the pop-psych experiments produced.

Both the noun and the verb form of Respect come from “abilities, qualities, or achievements.”

But enablers of victim mentality have abandoned the traditional definition to say that everyone, by virtue of being alive, is entitled to respect (apparently regardless of their abilities, qualities, or achievements). And they are quick to claim woundedness from any perceived lack of respect. College campuses and other organizations are unwittingly contributing to this distorted view of respect by supplanting Civility codes with vague but mandated codes of “Respect.”

This more recent attempt to make everyone “equal” is troublesome for a couple of reasons. First, it dilutes the meaning of respect. If everyone is supposed to be respected, what incentive does that provide our children to act in ways that are worthy of, and earn them, respect? The fact that we were all the fastest swimmers in the womb is not a valid reason for being respected.

Second, when people (especially immature, impressionable people) are told that they are worthy of respect irrespective of merit, it not only provides them license to act in ways that are not respect-worthy but it also promotes feeling like a “victim” when they inevitably are not treated with respect. Instead of changing their behavior to warrant respect, they blame others for unfairly treating them “disrespectfully” (which is often defined as anything they don’t like).

Consider how many arguments, altercations, and even stabbings or shootings occur because people feel they were “dissed” or not given what they believe is “proper respect.” Gang and other subcultures place an amazingly high emphasis on respect (or, rather, “disrespect”). People are attacked and killed for even hints of disrespect, such as rebuffing sexual advances, disrespecting the fans of a band, or looking at someone the wrong way.

Words frame attitudes and emotions, so they do matter. We can do our part by distinguishing between civility, which should be expected in society regardless, and respect, which should be earned.


Supporting What?

Here’s a concept that runs counter to traditional thinking – so it might make some a little uncomfortable or ruffle a few feathers.

Before I broke my neck, I believed like most people that “support groups” would be good for anyone dealing with traumatic injury or severe adversity. But after I became paralyzed, I didn’t want anything to do with people in wheelchairs. That was primarily because they mainly seemed so negative or like, well, like victims. (I call the wheelchair section at games “the whiner section.”)

Although I write about my paralysis occasionally to make certain points, my “disability” is not at all how I define myself. I decided long ago that I wanted to remain the same guy I was before I broke my neck, grow from there, and never be defined by the things I can’t do.

I’m a man with all kinds of things to get done who just happens to be inconvenienced by some paralysis. I don’t describe myself to others as “a quadriplegic,” I’m a man of faith who is a lawyer, and an investment banker. If I have to describe myself physically, I say, “I have quadriplegia.”

I  don’t find “commonality” with others who have disabilities. Scooter and Rick are buddies that just happen to have disabilities too, but we’re not friends because we share “common struggles” or any of that bull (you know, the “misery loves company” mindset).

They say “you are the average of the five people you spend the most time with.” Why pick people who are downers? I know, I know, there are exceptions. But “support groups” aren’t my idea of happy, positive people gathering to celebrate all the great things life has to offer. When you want to throw a great party, how often do you think, “hey, let’s invite some support groups?”

Now, I’m not talking about groups that focus on something positive or groups like AA or others that help people stay sober or get past something traumatic, but forming bonds over commiserating doesn’t seem to me to be a good idea. Wouldn’t it tend to disincentivize moving beyond the misery? And if it promotes finding an identity in something that is or is perceived as a negative, isn’t that finding comfort in woundedness? Plus it’s focusing on a negative.

I don’t want any of that. I’ve got too much to do, and there’s so much about life to embrace!