One of the few business articles I ever read that made sense was Theodore Levitt's classic "Marketing Myopia." His primary point was that a business shouldn't think in terms of what it does, but in terms of what customers value about what it does. This can produce a subtle but profound shift in perspective. With that in mind, I realize that most of you come here not because it is me saying these things (well, except maybe for you, Mama, and you, Aunt Debbie), but because you dig the "look at how these little things in life tell us about ourselves and the idiots around us" perspective.

With that understanding in mind, it occurs to me that I needn't be the one who writes everything here. So, I've decided to make my very good friend Steve Castro-Miller the first-ever Guest Writer on Sand in the Gears.

No Problem?
By Steve Castro-Miller

I'm tired of being served by people, mostly in the food industry, whose response to my polite "thank you" for serving me is, "No problem." Now what exactly is that supposed to mean? Its No Problem serving me? Its No Problem that I said thank you? Its No Problem that I'm spending my hard earned money to keep you employed? Its No Problem to be bothered by me? What's No Problem?

Just the other day I was in Home Depot. I approach the checkout stand with my purchases. The clerk is wearing his long drug dealer leather jacket over his orange smock, talking on the phone the whole time he is ringing up my purchases. Never does he say "Sorry to be on the phone" nor any recognition that what he is doing is rude. We speak nary a word until I say "Thank you." He lifts his chin over the phone and says, "No problem." No Problem that I didn't interrupt his phone conversation, I guess. What if I didn't say thank you? Would the response be "That's a Problem"? How about just saying, "You're welcome."

Oh, I realize I may get inundated with comments like "its just slang" or "why do you care?", but the point is, my politeness is responded to with superior words of condescension that I am not presenting a problem to the server (when what I'm really presenting is an opportunity for increased and repeat business).

I've decided to stop going to stores and restaurants where that is the response I get. If I can come up with a good question to follow a "No Problem" response, I'll pose it to the server on the spot.

Any suggestions?

A long-time reader of Sand in the Gears, Steve is an excellent business leader, father, and friend who lives in Kansas.

Well, it's (mostly) over, and it could have been worse. A lot of people claim to see little difference between Democrats and Republicans. In part that's because it's a popular thing to say, kind of like, "The best offense is a good defense." Some people actually believe it, however. They seem to fall into two camps: 1) people with strong ideological preferences, namely, conservatives, Libertarians, and socialists; and, 2) know-nothing Independents.

The former can be further divided. In one group are people who have an earnest interest in politics. In the other are people who truly see little difference between the parties, but who are interested in this observation less as a statement of truth than as an avenue to rant about their political beliefs. They are much like overeager Amway salesmen looking for any opportunity to remind you that multi-level marketing can help you make money and save money. That is perhaps a calumny against Amway members.

This leaves us with the second of the two groups I mentioned initially -- know-nothing Independents. I am increasingly convinced that this is a redundant term. I think in part this is my visceral reaction to news analyst worship of the Independent. In many news venues the Independent has been portrayed as thoughtful, above partisanship, capable of setting aside whim and short-term inclinations to support those policies best suited for advancing the public interest.

This is hogwash. Demographically speaking, if you want to see a typical Independent, find a former Ross Perot voter: white, middle-aged, male, above-average income, mad as hell and not quite sure what to do about it. He doesn't have a greater grasp on problems or solutions, just a sneaking suspicion that the latter don't lie in either of the two major parties. This is all fine and good; I suspect that hunch may be largely correct .

It is when he is interviewed that the myth of the knowledgeable Independent is exploded. Recall the last Presidential election, and those nauseating citizen focus groups inflicted on those of us with the courage to watch television in October. Or watch a C-SPAN broadcast during one of their call-in segments. Someone somewhere has gotten the bad idea that sticking microphones under noses is good for democracy. The results, however, make me wish we could raise the voting bar a bit, say past 99% of the population, for starters.

Unlike Independents, what Democrats and Republicans have to say tends to change with their parties' messages. Thus when Clinton was having trouble keeping track of what lie he had told about sex with whom, we could count on Democrats to say "that's his personal business," while Republicans insisted, "Presidents who lie under oath deserve to be fired." Now that Bush and the war on terrorism are exceedingly popular, the C-SPAN viewer can listen to Democrats remind us how important job growth is, while Republicans focus on stopping terrorists, and note that a critical strategy for doing so is a reduction of the capital gains tax.

Independents, on the other hand, always preface their comments with something like this: "There's too much bickering in Washington. I see no difference between the parties, so I vote for individuals I believe have the best answers to the nation's problems." Rain or shine, depression or war, the trusty Independent never strays off message. Never mind the fact that we need be most afraid when the politicians aren't bickering, or the reality that individual Congressman can only accomplish change in the context of the party system.

But the thoughtfulness of the Independent is only a veneer anyway, so these realities needn't intrude. Survey data reveals that the Independent is no more significantly educated on policy issues than is the average Democrat or Republican. He is slightly more willing to vote a split ticket, but not significantly so, thus belying the claim of choosing candidates based on individual merit. In fact, most Independents really aren't. Survey data shows that the bulk of people who call themselves Independent lean towards one of the two major parties, share the views of that party, and behave very much like members of that party. In short, most Independents are closet partisans who prefer the image of intelligence conferred by claiming Independent status, and are willing to sacrifice a voice in the primaries to obtain it. Hardly an act of sublime insight, don't you think?

Far worse than Independents, however, are the Undecideds, twits who claim not to have made up their minds a week -- sometimes even a day -- before an election. Interviewing Undecideds is a relatively recent phenomenon. You might recall they received considerable prominence in the days leading up to the last Presidential election. They were handled by journalists like exotic material, as if they somehow held the key to the future. Just once I would have liked to hear a journalist ask, "what kind of idiot are you, that you still can't decide between Bush and Gore? What new information do you expect to surface in the next 48 hours?"

Undecideds, like Independents, have received prominence as a result of journalists thinking they know something about voting and elections. For the most part, they don't. Even the sagest of Sunday morning talk show pundits can be counted on regularly to dispense idiocy. For example, notice how often an Eleanor Clift or Sam Donaldson will make an observation like the following: "The President is really positioning himself precariously here, supporting a revision of key amendments to the Farm Appropriations Bill, yet also advancing through back channels a handful of trade arrangements which many analysts project will ultimately depress the price of soybeans. I think midwestern voters are going to see through this kind of thing, and punish him in the midterm elections."

The reality, of course, is that most midwestern voters, like the rest of us, have no clue when there is a farm bill in play, and know nothing about its relationship to free trade. Survey evidence is clear that the vast majority of voters have only the fuzziest sense of what the candidates stand for, and virtually no knowledge of what they have done. They vote on the basis of party identification, and how they think the economy is doing, and charisma, and symbolism. The pundits need to appear insightful, however, so they carry on discussions of strategic machinations that rarely have any bearing on the realities of voting and elections.

While pundits talk as if an aware citizenry is punishing politicians who perform badly, it is more likely the case (and there is solid evidence to support this) that politicians punish one another, in the following way: perceived missteps by elected officials increase the odds that strong challengers (those with money, connections, charisma, name reputation, etc.) will emerge in the next election. Why? Because they believe voters are paying attention to the missteps. In short, it may be the case that democracy works indirectly, as a result of the political classes believing that voters are paying attention.

So perhaps I shouldn't dispel the myth. Back to the matter at hand, which is yesterday's elections. As I was saying, it's popular to assert that there is no difference between the parties. Few people really believe that, mind you, but they like to say it. But some believe it, and I suspect in the grand scheme of things they are right. That doesn't mean we can't personalize things, and find joy, for example, in the fact that a Kennedy lost yesterday. This is almost always a good thing. Or, we could take the lesser -of-two-evils view, and give thanks that as we are shaken down for the next two years by our national government, at least they are more likely to pull a punch or two in the various back alleys down which they drag us to extract liberty and rent.

But I'm feeling optimistic today, and hoping that this time, the party of Lincoln will have the fortitude to make good on some part of their endless pontificating about the need for reform of education, Social Security, health care, the military, the tax code, and the legal system. I hope they'll move beyond this novel co-governance model to which the Democrats believe they are entitled post-2000. Most of all, I hope Jim Jeffords (I, Hubris) gets relegated to the sub-sub-committee on toilet bowl regulation, watches the insanely unjust milk pricing scheme disappear, and is regularly wedgied in the Senate bathroom. I know we're all supposed to oppose partisanship, but you have to admit that brings a smile to your face, doesn't it?

This is the day when people with scant knowledge of candidates go to the polls to choose among them, after which they are self-righteously indignant at their counterparts who had the grace and good sense not to vote. Economists term this lack of information "rational ignorance." The notion is that, given the odds that one will actually influence the election, one is better off not spending time learning about the candidates. Unfortunately, rational ignorance doesn't translate into voter abstinence. This explains, among other things, the persistence of most politicians.

So we face the reality that ignorant people don't like abstinence. It makes sense, then, to provide them all with a prophylactic of sorts. Thus I give you my Voting Guide. Please feel free to distribute it on college campuses, sell it in gas station bathrooms and drugstores, and so on. Remember, unprotected voting can kill you.

First rule of voting: Politicians put everything in Us-Them terms, because we are tribal creatures. If you're wondering, when you hear a politician speak, to which group you belong, ask yourself these two questions:

1. Do I have a job?

2. Do I believe in every part of the Bill of Rights?

If you answer "yes" to both questions, you are a "Them."

If you answer "no" to both questions, you are in the wrong place, and were probably looking for this site.

If you answer "yes" to only one of the questions, just wait -- if we get enough people like you, we'll all be answering "no" to both soon enough.

Women in politics. I'll spare you the essay. Just a few pointers that you may also find to be helpful when dating:

1. Beware of women with earrings longer than their hair.

2. Women whose eyebrows are a different color than their hair are not to be trusted.

3. If she mentions throw-weight, vote for her. If she mentions Head Start, don't vote for her.

Come to think of it, these rules apply equally well to men in politics.

Terminology. Be suspicious of anyone who has worked in or voted to fund a place with two or more of the following words in its title: community, development, job, training, peace, studies, sustainable, justice.

All perfectly good words, hijacked by twits. That raises a question: what other words have the idiotarians hijacked? Certainly "liberal" belongs at the top of the list. It is closely followed by "progressive," for after the socialists and busybodies defiled the meaning of "liberal," they needed another misleading moniker. I suppose they'll move on to another one over time, like a democratic committee of locusts with Ph.D.'s.

What else belongs on the list? Fairness comes to mind. Equality. There are so many, in fact, that this Voting Guide wouldn't be complete without a lexicon:

Campaign Finance Reform: ensuring that grubby new money doesn't interfere with the goals of ill-gotten old money.

Community: people who agree with the intelligentsia (see "Liberal," below), and whose lack of gainful employment affords them ample time to pose as representatives of those of us with jobs.

Development: the use of other people's money on projects that ensure no economic, social, or moral development ever occurs in the neighborhoods targeted.

Diversity: the acceptance of people who look different, so long as they think and vote the same way (see "Progressive," below)

Equality: the use of discriminatory means to produce unequal outcomes.

Fairness: outcomes based on the demands of professional victims, as opposed to outcomes commensurate to inputs.

Freedom: absence of restrictions on the favored classes, accompanied by the requirement that the rest of us foot the bill.

Job: what people on the left want, but not so bad as to find or keep one.

Justice: what people on the left want, except when it is applied to people of color caught robbing the corner grocery.

Peace: the encouragement of war through perpetual bribery of thugs.

Progressive: someone who opposes reform of taxes, the legal system, education, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, health insurance, environmental regulation, and workplace rules, all in the name of being forward-looking.

Studies: the avoidance of knowledge.

Sustainable: a level of human reproduction and activity that does not sustain the population.

Training: workfare for bad teachers.

Finally, a word on representation. One doesn't necessarily have to be a member of a group to represent that group. One does need to have a grasp, however, of the reality faced by the people one claims to represent. With that in mind, you might think about this as you go to the polls: what does someone who has spent 14 hours a day working as a politician his entire life, or even worse, a trial attorney, know about running a business, or raising a family, or providing for a community through a church or civic organization?

In other words, what can people with little time for children, who have never themselves held gainful employment outside a system of arbitrary seizure and allocation, possibly have to say about running our lives? Do we really want to give such people control over our pocketbooks, our schools, our national defense? Perhaps instead of the (D) and (R) labels next to candidates' names, we can have the following designation:

(J): has held a job in a non-government entity for longer than two years.

(K): has kids and actually spends time with them (this designation would be applied only with unanimous agreement of the candidate's children).

(-L): is not a lawyer, and is not married to one.

(C): knows what the inside of a church or temple looks like.

Wouldn't that kind of information be much more helpful? I guess if full information were the goal, however, we'd make each candidate attach price tags to his spending proposals. And if we really believed in accountability, we'd subsequently deduct from his net wealth any difference between his estimate and the actual bill.

But of course, no system is perfect. We are imperfect people, bound to cast our votes today for less perfect people, who will in turn ignore us for two or four or six years while spending our money on things that sound good to people who are not net taxpayers. The only saving grace is that they know they'll have to come back and explain themselves if they want to be re-elected, and some of us -- just a few -- may actually be paying attention.

So go forth, fellow citizens, and if you can't find anyone you like, just invert the whole game, and use your vote to stick it to the worst bastards in each race.

If you think about voting that way, it's actually kind of fun.