Business laugh.

At the place where I work, sometimes members of our board of directors will come in for meetings. That part of this situation I am describing I am cool with. The part that I am not always cool with is the business laughing that usually goes on while these people are visiting. You know how there's business casual? And business class? And business lunch? There is also a business laugh. As far as I can tell, the goal of the business laugh is two-pronged: first, you want your laugh to flatter the person you are having a business interaction with; second, you want your laugh to overpower the person. It might sound like these two purposes are opposites - after all, isn't flattery essentially a form of submission? But flattery and the overpowering of the flattered do not have to be mutually exclusive in the business laugh scenario, and here's how: if you laugh forcefully and loudly enough, the person will feel, based on the volume and voracity of your laugh, that you think that they are absolutely hilarious. That same volume and force will also enable you to control the conversation, providing you can segue quickly from your laugh into a sentence. Also, your flattering laugh will likely have disarmed the person, giving you even more room to control the proceedings.


Unfortunately, there is more than one person who understands how to use a business laugh at our board meetings. So on board meeting days, the entire office is subjected to maniacal, raucous laughter emanating from the conference room. It then travels down the main hallway to the reception area, where it continues for another ten minutes as people stand around trying to out-laugh each other. It sounds like a hilarious situation, presented here, but when you're sitting at your desk trying to work, it can really jar you. But I guess a good business laugh is an important thing to have in your holster, as each one of us will probably be in a situation at some point where we will need it. So everyone practice your business laughs: "HAHAHAHAHAHA-HAHAAA!! AHAHAA-HAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHA!! So we need to lay off seventy percent of non-essential staff..."


Very good. Now video bonus time: I googled (spell check is telling me I need to capitalize that, but I am using it as a verb, and while Google may prefer that I capitalize it, I prefer that I don't) "business laugh" just to see if my discovery was original or not, and it turns out that there is a yogi ("India's Jeffrey Tambor", I have decided to call him) who got about half as far as I have. That is, he stumbled upon the value of laughter in business scenarios. He doesn't seem to focus on its application in controlling people, but that probably has a lot to do with his world view. Here are two videos of him, and one video of the person he reminds me of:

Conversation killer.

You know how sometimes when you're with someone and you take a phone call, as soon as you finish the call the person you're with will ask, "who was that?" I just thought of a great way to kill that conversation before it starts. When he asks who it was, answer, "it was my proctologist." Now, if this person is the type to ask who you were talking to on the phone, he is also probably the type to ask if everything is all right down there. That is when you say, "I don't really want to talk about it." That should effectively nip any further discussion at the bud. I haven't actually tried this yet (I try not to take phone calls in front of other people, because many of my phone calls consist of me cussing out the jockey who rides the racehorse that I own) but I'm pretty sure it would work. And I urge you not to try to substitute "proctologist" with any other kind of doctor. For example, if you say dermatologist, and then tell the person you don't want to talk about it, he still might ask if it's a mole or sun damage or something. But anything a proctologist is looking at is going to be a lot more uncomfortable to talk about than sun-damaged skin. So he probably won't pursue it further. And that concludes today's lesson.

I told you Dick Bavetta would be back.

Decision Armageddon.

In the flurry of activity surrounding next year's presidential election, the media had for a while missed reporting on a public figure whose endorsement is one of the most sought-after by candidates (especially Republicans). Finally, though, new poll numbers on God! A political research firm has released polling data that really paints a picture of where voters are on God's recent performance (I should say the data paints pictures, because like most polling results, the data can be spun to indicate whatever you want it to indicate).

The poll -- which was conducted by the Democratic research firm Public Policy Polling (PPP) -- surveyed 928 people and found that 52 percent of Americans approved of God's overall dealings, while only 9 percent disapproved.

The interesting thing about the reporting of this story is that the website from which I pulled the above sentence, HuffingtonPost.com, had a headline above the story that read "God's Approval Rating Barely Breaks 50 Percent". That word "barely" makes it sound like Huffington Post is down on God, and pretty pleased that he is only squeaking by in the eyes of the American public. However, when the article breaks the data down, we see that although only 52 percent of people polled had a favorable view of God and his work, a measly nine percent actually disapproved. Don't reflect that little tidbit of information in your headline, do you, Huffington Post? Maybe the headline should read "Way More People Actively Approve of God Than Disapprove". That might be a little less misleading, huh? But that still wouldn't reflect what I think is one of the biggest points to take away from this poll. It's something that the Huffington Post didn't even comment on in their article, probably because it takes all the teeth away from their position: the remainder of people polled responded that they were "not sure" about God's performance.

Here's how "not sure" translates in this context: "Really? That's really a question? We have a Congress that is more than happy to let the country die just to score political points, Europe is experiencing unprecedented financial turmoil, people are dying by the millions across Africa and the Middle East at the hands of disease, famine and militaristic dictators, and you're focusing your energy on a phony-baloney God poll? How will the results of this poll change anything at all? You think God cares if a thousand-person sample approves of his "performance" or not? Come on!" Public Policy Polling couldn't fit that response onto a ballot, so they substituted it with the option of "Not Sure". But the media doesn't want you to know that, because then their story would be even more fluff than it is already.

Also, on a related note, please review the arithmetic of the "In The Arena" team at CNN. Those are some straight up number-crunchers they have there. That extra one percent must be a very special group of people:

I think CNN misunderstood what "sampling error" means. It's a provision for the inaccuracy of surveying a sample of the population instead of the whole population, not an out for people in the newsroom who don't know how to add.

See if you can guess who sent this, Pink Ranger.

Here's an email I received recently from a coworker:

Thanks Carl – all that he wrote in the email to you – was exactly my understanding of things when he left the interview on Wednesday – in fact I even gave him the P/C Orientation info to share with Mom of little boy he talked about - when he left the office – and I knew that he may be going out of state when he graduates – but only to Idaho and since he has rental property here he said he would be back often and would be able to make the one year commitment…………so I have already started calling references and put his background check info in your box….

As soon as I finished reading it, I rushed to her office to check on her. She seemed to be struggling for air! The halting, hyphenated voice! The lengthy ellipses! She must be in trouble! Perhaps trapped under the weight of a collapsed desk! "Help..............me........." But she was fine. I suppose I should have remembered the lesson I learned from Graham Chapman:

One thing that I tell people:

I tell people that rugby is safer than American football. This is usually when they question my preference for my children to play rugby over football. "Rugby is so dangerous," they protest. I disagree. I also like rugby's fan culture more than football's. If I'm going to be counted among loud, often drunk, overfed maniacs, I'd rather it be a group of maniacs who are aware that there is a world that exists outside of the United States. But the whole safety thing is a catching point, because people will remind me that football players wear pads, whereas rugby players might sport a half-inch-thick layer of foam body armor only if they are a small player, and most of them are not. Also, they get to wear a cool foam hat if they've had a concussion.

The thing that makes the difference in safety, I contend, is that a player rolled up in 40 pounds of hard, molded plastic is loads more likely to blindly, stupidly throw himself at another player and then jump up and down on top of him. That's football. And that's why so many people break their arms and legs playing it. The only rule, as far as I know, in place to protect players' bodies is no spearing, which means they can't ram each other with their heads. So no broken necks, but you still could get one of these:

You don't see that very often in rugby! Usually, rugby injuries are closer to this:

One type of injury makes you look cool, the other one makes your life miserable. So I was delighted this morning to read something in the paper - is "in the paper" still the appropriate term if I read it on the newspaper's website? Maybe that phrase needs to be updated - I read on the paper (that sounds even weirder) a quote by a rugby star-turned-football player at the University of Utah who says what I have been saying all along. But he is six foot three and 235 pounds of muscle, so maybe more people will listen to him (for the record, I am six foot one and 205 pounds of cheeseburgers and grape juice):

"Pads make it a different game," Palamo said. "A lot of people think pads will protect you. But all they really do is give the other people a chance to throw their whole body at you without worrying about getting hurt."

There you go. Pads make it a different game.

Impossible.

The other day on NPR they were talking about the aging infrastructures in the United States. I was listening in my car, while driving on a freeway littered with orange barrels and construction workers. One of NPR's guests who was weighing in on the subject was Congressman John Mica from Florida, who is on the House Transportation Committee, I think. The host asked Congressman Mica if doing ______ would be an option (I don't remember what they were talking about exactly, but that's probably because I was so distracted by what happened next). The Congressman responded: "not only is that impossible, but it is beyond anybody's capability..." Impossible and beyond anybody's capability? That really doesn't sound like it's going to happen then, huh, Mica? That's the mark of a politician who is used to having to be able to keep talking even if he has nothing left to say: if you can't find a Yellow Pages to filibuster with, then just start figuring out different ways to say the same thing over and over. It also reminded me of something Ben Stiller said once: "this mission - it just got a hell of a lot more impossibler."

"Not only am I holding up two fingers, but I am holding up one finger and another finger."

Ya ok.

Ya ok ummm so I was forced to communicate with a client via email because the phone number he gave me wasn't working. When I emailed him for the first time, I was operating under an assumption that the level of sophistication at which I should try to communicate with him was high. I think that's a natural assumption; in a professional environment, you should make an effort to maintain an appropriate level of sophistimacation. Not weird English-butler level, but just a nice, professional, high level. So I emailed him in an appropriately sophisticated voice. I then received a voice mail from him apologizing that his phone had been turned off, and that if I called again and I should be able to reach him. In his voice mail, he too seemed to be trying to communicate in a professional way. It was a very business-normal message. But I tried his phone again, and got the same result. I then emailed him:

Hi Gamorrean Guard

I received your voice mail, and tried to return, but when I call your phone it doesn't really seem to do anything (no rings, no beeps). The number that I have for you is קםער-קצצ-תפש. Is that correct? We can schedule over email if that's easier for you. If you could just let me know what times of the week you are available for an hour-and-a-half long interview, I can see how we could fit it into our schedule. Thanks

CARL

And this was his reply:

Ya ok idk I never hear you call but ummm really anytime cause my work is kinda flexible let me know when you can

Gamorrean Guard

Really, Gamorrean Guard? You know you can think about what you've written before you send it in an email, right? You don't have to just send whatever pops into your head first. Um idk I guess sum ppl aren't worried about how the way they communicate can make others perceive them lmao.