CDZ The polarization of American politics.

[320 Years of History]

Right now, at this very moment, I have about a dozen or more liberal friends on Facebook who have shown support for the Native Americans protesting the oil pipeline in SD... NONE of them will even respond to my requests to support World Missions Outreach or Feed The 5000.

People support and contribute to charitable endeavors that capture their spirit. I'm not of a mind to ridicule or begrudge folks for what they choose to support or not support as go charities.

 

[jillian]

Edit/Correction:
Above I wrote, "we'd need 15M mentors." Apologies for the division error. The correct figure should be 9M mentors. That said, the correct figure doesn't make the sums needed any more available or affordable.

Let me say, I commend what you are doing and I think more people should do such things. I also mentor young people but it's not through some formal program, it's more 'taking them under my wing' to sort of give them guidance and advice. I have volunteered for youth programs of all kinds through the years.. the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, parks and recreation programs, Boy Scouts, etc. I've done loads of volunteer work for a local homeless shelter and for another local food pantry. For a few years, I helped a local church do a meals on wheels program. I am currently working with two non-profits who help feed and educate poor children in Nicaragua. So personally, although I am a devout Conservative, I have a servants heart. It's part of who I am and I don't do it for the recognition. And I am not a rare Conservative, I know many of them who volunteer right along side me.

One aspect that I've seen, that we've really not discussed, is how the various government programs and handouts affect the attitudes of some people who might otherwise contribute more. You wouldn't believe how many times I've heard the line: "Why should I contribute? They get enough of my tax dollars already!" Sadly enough, I think this sentiment is often used by the liberal social justice warriors more than anyone as an excuse for not contributing their time. They figure they are "doing their part" by protesting and lobbying for more government solutions. Right now, at this very moment, I have about a dozen or more liberal friends on Facebook who have shown support for the Native Americans protesting the oil pipeline in SD... NONE of them will even respond to my requests to support World Missions Outreach or Feed The 5000.

why would I give money to Christian missionaries? there are other ways to give money to charity. the fact that I don't fund Christian evangelism isn't any indication that I don't fund worthy endeavors. I just don't see any reason to give money to people who try to feed you their religion before they feed you.

 

[Boss]

why would I give money to Christian missionaries? there are other ways to give money to charity. the fact that I don't fund Christian evangelism isn't any indication that I don't fund worthy endeavors. I just don't see any reason to give money to people who try to feed you their religion before they feed you.

The thing about Christianity is, it's a religion of acceptance. You can't force someone to be a Christian. In order to be a Christian, you have to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior... there is no other way to be a Christian... it's a conscious choice made by the individual.

WMO doesn't go to Nicaragua to convert people to Christianity. They go there to feed starving children and they provide meals to over 50,000 on a daily basis. They also fund schools and have educated several generations now. They do have a church and ministry and they hold weekly services but there is no requirement of anyone to attend. So WMO is not evangelism. It is charity and they do selfless and amazing work there.

I'm not a Christian. I have respect for people who are Christians and I don't have any problem or prejudice toward their religion. I've been down there several times and helped with their programs. I've never felt pressured to attend church or proselytized to by anyone. In fact, no one has even so much as asked me if I am a Christian. That said, most of the people in the small villages I've been to there are Christians and attend the services. It's amazing, in a country where people are starving and living in a landfill, there just aren't many atheists.

 

[Boss]

People support and contribute to charitable endeavors that capture their spirit. I'm not of a mind to ridicule or begrudge folks for what they choose to support or not support as go charities.

I'm not ridiculing. I just find it interesting that my left-wing liberal friends seem to favor taking my tax money to help others and the biggest effort they personally make is to update their Facebook status.

 

[Iceweasel]

One of me favorite shows: "Adam Ruins Everything" has an election special out now. I recommend that everyone watch it. He is fairly evenly critical of both candidates and parties.

If you don't wish to, here is the spoiler: according to the show, the most important problem in American Politics is polarization. No one on either side can talk to the other side.

I know that I am very polarized, that I will only rarely discuss issues with the left. I have my reasons and I have expressed them elsewhere. No real need for me to repeat it.

At the end of the show, Adam requested that we all try to find common ground with the other side that we can agree on and possibly make progress with.

I'm skeptical. Not just because it's hard to get the left to cooperate, but because you and I, the average citizen, can no longer effect change. I seriously doubt that even if everyone on this board all agreed that the debt was a major problem, for example, and even if we agreed on a plan of action, we could not get that solution in place.

That said, I'm willing to try an experiment. I already know a few issues that I agree with the left on. They are:

1. Evolution is the best explanation of how life came to be as it is on this planet.
2. The government should stay out of marriage completely. Anyone should be able to get married to anyone else as long as that person consents and is of the legal age of consent.

There are a few things that I think that I can come to terms with the left on:

1. That our debt is one of the most important issues we face.
2. That lying by our politicians should not be tolerated.
3. The influence of money in our politics is harmful.

It isn't much but it's a start. Anyone want to try to reach accross? See if it's possible.

There are things I can agree with, on the right. I think schools need to be brought back to more local levels as opposed to federal. I think the left has a tendancy to go overboard in their anti-Christian scrubbing of public places. I see no reason not to acknowledge that our country's main heritage is Judeo-Christian and enjoy Christmas pagents, songs, nativities etc as expressions of that heritage instead of insisting it be secularized or removed. Same with certain aspects of public prayer like before games.

I think both the right and left agree on the influence of money in politics being harmful - at least I agree with that.

Money in politics is a big one, and I agree that there needs to be reform. Many in the left complain about corporate money and we on the right counter with union money. Would you agree to getting rid of both?

Absolutely.

Citizen's United opened the door to both.

My feeling is that if you can't be sent to prison because you are not an actual person, then you shouldn't be able to contribute money to politics.

And yet you NEVER hear of liberals complaining about unions funneling money into Democrat coffers. Go figure!

I have done so- everytime I have discussed Citizen's United- I have pointed out that CU opened up the floodgates for both corporations and unions.

So once again you are wrong.

I said liberals. You aren't the liberals. There's nothing in the Constitution that should prevent people from willingly pooling their money to support causes. Unions do it against member will so that needs to be addressed on the federal level, some states already have.

 

[oldsoul]

I understood your angle. I happen to think, however, that the solution must be multidimensional: the economic support governments proffer is essential for people need food, shelter and clothing, but so too is the community-based "hands-on" support of the sort I provide is just as important for government money doesn't resolve the heartache and despondency that people experience when they are trying to get ahead and can't, or quite simply just don't know what to do next to get back on track or move forward.

Of course, I cannot do it alone, but people like me, like you and every other person who's "done something with their lives" contributing of their "blood, sweat, tears and time" to help someone or several someones can.

People DO need food, shelter and clothing. The US has over 20,000 various charity organizations dedicated to providing food, shelter and clothing to the poor. The Salvation Army is located in every major city of America. Nowhere in the Constitution is our government authorized to do charity work. And I think there is a very good reason for this. It promotes dependency and that does not HELP anyone.

Now... You never got into any details about what you actually do to mentor but let's say that all you did was to show up once a week to give your person $100 cash and told them, go buy whatever you need.... do you think that sort of mentoring would have been effective?

You see, to effectively help someone out of poverty there has to be some level of motivation. Something has to inspire them to take action and do the things they need to do to improve their condition. If there is no expectation there is no motivation. Simply handing them $100 doesn't solve their problem it just makes them dependent.

Red:
Details: The short of what I do is help my mentees learn and exhibit the habits -- behavioral and metal -- of high-achieving people.

• Provide "life" guidance by explaining how life works, how things "fit together" as a whole, for example:
  • School --> college --> career development
  • Vision --> strategy --> tactics --> act --> evaluate progress --> adjust strategy, tactics or vision as needed --> revise plan --> keep going
• Help with homework and explain scholastic/academic concepts
• Teach study habits, skills and techniques
• Provide inspiration, motivation and help build their self-confidence
• Teach goal setting and goal and task prioritization skills
• Help them develop plans for achieving specific goals they set for themselves
  
• Teach or reinforce analytical skills
• Teach or reinforce problem solving skills
• Teach or reinforce objective thinking skills
• Assist with school applications
• Provide opportunities for discovering things they otherwise would not
• Introduce them to people who live the kinds of lives my mentees may want to live when they become adults
• Introduce them to people who have the kinds of careers my mentees may want to have when they become adults
• Provide limited financial support when it's critically necessary and there is no other viable alternative

Blue:
No, handing them money will not alone solve their problems, yet their being "handed" money by the public assistance programs that do that without question solves the problem of making sure their most basic of needs are met. You see, all the stuff I do would have little to no value if the kids aren't being housed, fed, clothed, shod, etc. One cannot rationally expect a kid to give a damn about laying the foundations for what their life will bring five years from now when today they have no food in their belly and they have no idea where they'll get food tomorrow. Public assistance isn't mean to solve every problem its recipients have; it's mean to solve the most basic ones so the recipients can act on their own (or with help such as that I give my mentees) to solve the rest of their problems.

Okay, what if I said, screw all that... let's just give them $100 and hope for the best? You see, that's what government entitlements do. There is no motivational factor. There is no inspiration. There is no instruction or teaching. It's simply saying... screw that, here's a check.. .good luck!

I have no problem with providing temporary help for people who find themselves indigent. I don't even have a problem with a portion of tax dollars being used for this. But anything we do should come with some level of expectation or require some degree of motivation. Otherwise, it is counterproductive to the goal of actually HELPING them.

Except you are leaving out the myriad of other opportunities offered. Such as subsidized/free college tuition, free classes/job training, free personal finance classes, etc. Also, there is a pretty strict time limit for receiving benefits in most cases (built-in incentive?).

These arguments have been made for the past 50 years without any tangible results except for an ever growing percentage of the population dependent on government programs and a huge national debt. Are these the results you desire?

No, I was merely pointing out that "cash" assistance is not the only thing our governments (federal, state and local) do for the poor

 

[oldsoul]

Except you are leaving out the myriad of other opportunities offered. Such as subsidized/free college tuition, free classes/job training, free personal finance classes, etc. Also, there is a pretty strict time limit for receiving benefits in most cases (built-in incentive?).

Sorry, I don't believe in fairy tales or fantasy worlds. Education and health care aren't free. Nothing is FREE... someone has to pay for it. You can say that is "selfish and greedy" but I think it's far more selfish and greedy to think you're entitled to what other people have worked hard to earn.

I didn't come from a rich family... I worked two part-time jobs to earn money to pay for my college education. I didn't like that... I hate and deplore working for other people. I like being my own boss but you do what you have to do. I sure as fuck didn't go through that so I could turn around and pay for "free stuff" for others. Why can't they bust their asses like I did? Why am I somehow obligated to pay for their things?

When it comes to liberals, there is no "strict limit" ...those fucking go out the window and they whine and moan about the poor people who are going to be kicked to the curb by mean old greedy republicans who hate minorities and such. So don't feed me that.. it's pure bullshit.

Now let's look at something like Peach Grants program in Georgia... I was a big supporter of this when Democrat, Zell Miller was governor. Yes... My Conservative ass was fully supportive of a Democrat program! Why? Because it came with an expectation and motivational factor... you had to maintain a B average in high school to qualify for a state grant for college... I had no problem with that. The lottery paid for it and millions have received a great college education they could never have afforded otherwise. That's FAR different than some pie-in-the-sky notion of FREE COLLEGE TUITION because you're somehow entitled.

Sorry, I don't believe in fairy tales or fantasy worlds. Education and health care aren't free. Nothing is FREE... someone has to pay for it. You can say that is "selfish and greedy" but I think it's far more selfish and greedy to think you're entitled to what other people have worked hard to earn.

No, they are not. However, when one is below a certain income threshold, one pays nothing for these services, hence they are free, to the recipient at least. That is the point I was making.

Now let's look at something like Peach Grants program in Georgia... I was a big supporter of this when Democrat, Zell Miller was governor. Yes... My Conservative ass was fully supportive of a Democrat program! Why? Because it came with an expectation and motivational factor... you had to maintain a B average in high school to qualify for a state grant for college... I had no problem with that. The lottery paid for it and millions have received a great college education they could never have afforded otherwise. That's FAR different than some pie-in-the-sky notion of FREE COLLEGE TUITION because you're somehow entitled.

I can see why you would support such a program, as would I. I believe we need more of this type of thinking. This is why I have begun the process of proposing similar ideas in my own area. As of yet, however, I have found little support for ideas such as:

• GPA minimums for govt. subsidized post-secondary education.
• welfare recipients required to work at least part-time for the city/county doing meaningful work (ie. shoveling snow, raking leaves, mowing grass, storm clean-up, trash clean-up, etc.).
• mandatory drug testing (rehab if needed) for recipients of ANY govt. assistance.

The problem, as I see it, is that I live in a heavily unionized area, and many people fear that these requirements would "unfairly" take union jobs away, are discriminatory in nature, and/or are simply unnecessary.

 

[jwoodie]

• welfare recipients required to work at least part-time for the city/county doing meaningful work (ie. shoveling snow, raking leaves, mowing grass, storm clean-up, trash clean-up, etc.).

• mandatory drug testing (rehab if needed) for recipients of ANY govt. assistance.

 

[jillian]

why would I give money to Christian missionaries? there are other ways to give money to charity. the fact that I don't fund Christian evangelism isn't any indication that I don't fund worthy endeavors. I just don't see any reason to give money to people who try to feed you their religion before they feed you.

The thing about Christianity is, it's a religion of acceptance. You can't force someone to be a Christian. In order to be a Christian, you have to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior... there is no other way to be a Christian... it's a conscious choice made by the individual.

WMO doesn't go to Nicaragua to convert people to Christianity. They go there to feed starving children and they provide meals to over 50,000 on a daily basis. They also fund schools and have educated several generations now. They do have a church and ministry and they hold weekly services but there is no requirement of anyone to attend. So WMO is not evangelism. It is charity and they do selfless and amazing work there.

I'm not a Christian. I have respect for people who are Christians and I don't have any problem or prejudice toward their religion. I've been down there several times and helped with their programs. I've never felt pressured to attend church or proselytized to by anyone. In fact, no one has even so much as asked me if I am a Christian. That said, most of the people in the small villages I've been to there are Christians and attend the services. It's amazing, in a country where people are starving and living in a landfill, there just aren't many atheists.

I'm not commenting on Christian beliefs. I just would never find the religion's expansion efforts. Why would I?

Your last sentence implies that you think people are either Christians or atheists. And that is false and exactly why I don't believe in the arrogance of evangelism.

 

[320 Years of History]

WMO doesn't go to Nicaragua to convert people to Christianity.

It's not surprising that the WMO don't engage in theological conversion for I should think there's no need to do that. Aren't nearly all Nicaraguans and other Central Americans, at this point in history, Christians to begin?

 

[320 Years of History]

I just would never find the religion's expansion efforts.

??? Really? Do you donate money to your own church? If you do, I suspect some part of your contribution goes toward proselytizing. After all, missionaries, preachers, and other theists need not leave the U.S. to try adding adherents to their faith. From what I can tell, nearly all theists keep their eyes and ears open for opportunities to convert the "heathens and heretics" whom they encounter. Have you ever encountered folks in a shopping center passing out fliers to "spread the Word," or had a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon knock on your door? If you have, you've encountered folks actively trying to spread their faith.

 

[jwoodie]

There is a religious component (e.g., "a power greater than ourselves") in many private social intervention programs, which seem to be so much more effective than government programs. Perhaps a literal rereading of the First Amendment is is order.

 

[Boss]

No, they are not. However, when one is below a certain income threshold, one pays nothing for these services, hence they are free, to the recipient at least. That is the point I was making.

What is it about an income level that makes you entitled to the labor and effort of another? I'm sorry you think that way but I am really curious as to WHY you think that way?

It is certainly not a mindset that helps anyone, it simply encourages laziness and lack of motivation. And that is the whole entire problem with your social welfare programs... they don't work. They foster a dependency class.

 

[Boss]

why would I give money to Christian missionaries? there are other ways to give money to charity. the fact that I don't fund Christian evangelism isn't any indication that I don't fund worthy endeavors. I just don't see any reason to give money to people who try to feed you their religion before they feed you.

The thing about Christianity is, it's a religion of acceptance. You can't force someone to be a Christian. In order to be a Christian, you have to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior... there is no other way to be a Christian... it's a conscious choice made by the individual.

WMO doesn't go to Nicaragua to convert people to Christianity. They go there to feed starving children and they provide meals to over 50,000 on a daily basis. They also fund schools and have educated several generations now. They do have a church and ministry and they hold weekly services but there is no requirement of anyone to attend. So WMO is not evangelism. It is charity and they do selfless and amazing work there.

I'm not a Christian. I have respect for people who are Christians and I don't have any problem or prejudice toward their religion. I've been down there several times and helped with their programs. I've never felt pressured to attend church or proselytized to by anyone. In fact, no one has even so much as asked me if I am a Christian. That said, most of the people in the small villages I've been to there are Christians and attend the services. It's amazing, in a country where people are starving and living in a landfill, there just aren't many atheists.

I'm not commenting on Christian beliefs. I just would never find the religion's expansion efforts. Why would I?

Your last sentence implies that you think people are either Christians or atheists. And that is false and exactly why I don't believe in the arrogance of evangelism.

But they're not expanding their religion... they're feeding hungry children. Why wouldn't you feed hungry children? Feed the 5000 collects plastic bowls and spoons. It sounds kind of trivial but these kids are so grateful to have their own bowl and spoon. How much does a plastic bowl and spoon cost? That's too much for you to contribute because they are Christians?

My last sentence implied nothing of the sort. I simply made a statement of truth.

 

[320 Years of History]

why would I give money to Christian missionaries? there are other ways to give money to charity. the fact that I don't fund Christian evangelism isn't any indication that I don't fund worthy endeavors. I just don't see any reason to give money to people who try to feed you their religion before they feed you.

The thing about Christianity is, it's a religion of acceptance. You can't force someone to be a Christian. In order to be a Christian, you have to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior... there is no other way to be a Christian... it's a conscious choice made by the individual.

WMO doesn't go to Nicaragua to convert people to Christianity. They go there to feed starving children and they provide meals to over 50,000 on a daily basis. They also fund schools and have educated several generations now. They do have a church and ministry and they hold weekly services but there is no requirement of anyone to attend. So WMO is not evangelism. It is charity and they do selfless and amazing work there.

I'm not a Christian. I have respect for people who are Christians and I don't have any problem or prejudice toward their religion. I've been down there several times and helped with their programs. I've never felt pressured to attend church or proselytized to by anyone. In fact, no one has even so much as asked me if I am a Christian. That said, most of the people in the small villages I've been to there are Christians and attend the services. It's amazing, in a country where people are starving and living in a landfill, there just aren't many atheists.

I'm not commenting on Christian beliefs. I just would never find the religion's expansion efforts. Why would I?

Your last sentence implies that you think people are either Christians or atheists. And that is false and exactly why I don't believe in the arrogance of evangelism.

But they're not expanding their religion... they're feeding hungry children. Why wouldn't you feed hungry children? Feed the 5000 collects plastic bowls and spoons. It sounds kind of trivial but these kids are so grateful to have their own bowl and spoon. How much does a plastic bowl and spoon cost? That's too much for you to contribute because they are Christians?

My last sentence implied nothing of the sort. I simply made a statement of truth.

You both should probably read this.

 

[Boss]

You both should probably read this.

What does that have to do with WMO or charity work? I realize we were previously having a conversation about social welfare programs from the government and maybe that is what you meant to address... or at least, I am going to make that assumption.

I've never said all welfare recipients are lazy. I used your own example of mentoring, which you are intimately familiar with, to demonstrate my point. If your mentoring amounted to showing up once a month to deliver a check and nothing more, would it be effective? I argue that it would not be and I think you realize it would not be. Now let's ask ourselves why that wouldn't work? I'll let you explain it because, apparently, when I explain it you hear me claiming all welfare recipients are lazy.

You've heard the expression: Give a man a fish and feed him for a day... teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. That is my point. Social government welfare programs do not teach men to fish, they hand him a fish with no further expectation. I believe this is counterproductive to "helping" and is more in line with "enabling" a dependency.

 

[320 Years of History]

I realize we were previously having a conversation about social welfare programs from the government and maybe that is what you meant to address... or at least, I am going to make that assumption.

Yep....that's the right assumption. I associated my sentence with the wrong post. Sorry. Should have been in connection with post #93.

it simply encourages laziness and lack of motivation.

 

[Boss]

I realize we were previously having a conversation about social welfare programs from the government and maybe that is what you meant to address... or at least, I am going to make that assumption.

Yep....that's the right assumption. I associated my sentence with the wrong post. Sorry. Should have been in connection with post #93.

it simply encourages laziness and lack of motivation.

Thanks... so now, you can address my comments in #96.

Let me add something, if I may?

Suppose in your mentoring, you realized your mentee was needing something you could afford to provide... like, say, a pair of dress shoes. Which action would you prefer to take... A.) Give him $100 to go buy some nice dress shoes... or B.) Take him to a place you know of that has nice dress shoes, have him fitted and then pay for the shoes?

I would chose B. Not because I'm a racist or I don't trust the mentee... but because my role as a mentor would be to teach him things and show him how they are done properly. Rather then test my faith in his honesty and judgement, I would take a more proactive role if I was investing my $100.

What I am interested in hearing is an argument for A.

 

[320 Years of History]

I realize we were previously having a conversation about social welfare programs from the government and maybe that is what you meant to address... or at least, I am going to make that assumption.

Yep....that's the right assumption. I associated my sentence with the wrong post. Sorry. Should have been in connection with post #93.

it simply encourages laziness and lack of motivation.

Thanks... so now, you can address my comments in #96.

Let me add something, if I may?

Suppose in your mentoring, you realized your mentee was needing something you could afford to provide... like, say, a pair of dress shoes. Which action would you prefer to take... A.) Give him $100 to go buy some nice dress shoes... or B.) Take him to a place you know of that has nice dress shoes, have him fitted and then pay for the shoes?

I would chose B. Not because I'm a racist or I don't trust the mentee... but because my role as a mentor would be to teach him things and show him how they are done properly. Rather then test my faith in his honesty and judgement, I would take a more proactive role if I was investing my $100.

What I am interested in hearing is an argument for A.

If your mentoring amounted to showing up once a month to deliver a check and nothing more, would it be effective?

Well, you're going to have to wait for someone else to argue that point. I clearly stated earlier that in my mind, the solution requires both mentoring and money. One or the other by itself will not do the trick. I should think nobody finds that surprising or irrational, yet befuddling to me, there are people who see the solution as an "either or" thing. I have zero evidence that credibly shows that either money or mentoring can solve the problem.
Mentoring and money is precisely the thing that made me, my kids, my parent, my relatives, my colleagues, etc. successful. It's what made you, me and every other successful person be successful. Someone put a roof over our heads, food on the table and clothes on our back. That same individual or organization also provided us with mentoring; we went to school, we followed the guidance we received and did well at school, and we carry and apply what we learned in school and build upon those skills to maintain a track record of successfully meeting the objectives set before us.

When successful folks -- folks like you (I assume; I don't know you to say for sure, but I'm going to assume you are successful), like me, like anyone who is successful -- take on a career, they have someone who guides them through developing it so that it becomes the thing they want as well as a thing that yields compensation. I know in my own case, I didn't know exactly what to do to direct my career so that it produced what I wanted from it, but I had mentors in the firm who showed me how to do that. When I had my first child, I didn't really know all that much about being a parent, but I read a lot of books and papers about it and I obtained input from my parents. For both processes, all I did was heed the advice I received, tweaking it "here and there" in small ways as I reasoned ("reasoned" not "felt") appropriate given the differences between my mentors' circumstances and my situation, on the assumption that, seeing as they had done what I was trying to do, they knew what they were talking about. Lo and behold, they did.

 

[320 Years of History]

Suppose in your mentoring, you realized your mentee was needing something you could afford to provide... like, say, a pair of dress shoes. Which action would you prefer to take... A.) Give him $100 to go buy some nice dress shoes... or B.) Take him to a place you know of that has nice dress shoes, have him fitted and then pay for the shoes?

To directly answer your question. In some situations, I'd choose "A" and in others, "B." I'm certainly not going to go "shoe shopping" as a learning event when it's clear to me the lessons to be learned from doing so have been learned. Additionally, which solution approach I take will depend on the individual who needs the "shoes." Some people can be told in the abstract how to resolve a problem and others need hand holding the first time round. Having raised three kids, having sold essentially the same engagement work to multiple clients, having directly managed and career-mentored ~130 consultants over the past 20+ years, I know for sure that as with actual shoes, there's no "one size fits all" or "one size fits most" way to empower and develop individuals' skills, knowledge and abilities. I wish there were such a simple way to do it, but there just isn't, at least not if one is committed to achieving maximum/optimum results.