I know you’ve worked hard to prepare yourself to compete and how much you want to win. That’s a good goal. You will always get the best out of yourself when you strive for victory.

But winning is not the only goal or even the most important one. What’s most important is to have fun and learn. I want you to love the sport so much that you find pleasure in the effort itself and in the friendship of your teammates and other competitors.

I want you to know you can do well – no matter who takes home the medals – if you do your best. And you will be a winner if you keep getting better. I want you to pursue excellence with all your heart, not to please me or your mom or anyone else, but to experience the joy of accomplishment.

If you wobble, keep going. If you fall, get up and continue. No matter what happens, keep your head high. Don’t give up or give in. If things don’t go your way, don’t cry, whine, or make excuses.

Always conduct yourself in a way that brings honor to your team, your coaches, your family and, above all, yourself. I want you to be a model of good sportsmanship, treating the sport, its rules, your teammates, other competitors, and judges with respect.

But most of all, I want you to know how proud of you I am.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

The coach realized if his players had not really passed the test, they were ineligible and, according to league rules, all games in which they had played must be forfeited, and his team must be disqualified from the finals.

The coach asked me, “What good would it do to report the ineligibility?” The players who committed the act would be devastated, and the ones who didn’t would be unfairly denied their shot at the championship. Parents, players, and others would be furious. The English teacher would get in big-time trouble, and he, the coach, might lose his job. “Wouldn’t the greater good be accomplished if I just kept quiet?” he asked.

Of course not. Although it would take great moral courage to do the right thing – play by the rules and let the chips fall where they may – I told him that’s precisely what he should do.

There were many stakeholders involved (people who would be affected by the decision), and the coach was duty-bound to use his teaching platform to send an unequivocal positive message about honor and integrity. Failing to do so would deprive another team of its right to go to the finals. Looking the other way would undermine his credibility.

It’s a high price to pay, but as the years go by, the decision to pursue the path of honor will be an enduring gift to his players and community.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Ethical companies have a competitive edge because people prefer to deal with firms they trust. They also benefit from high credibility; being believed is an enormous asset. In addition, ethical companies attract and retain employees better because they have higher morale. And finally, good ethics generates a good reputation, good will, and loyalty.

So it’s true: Good ethics is good business.

Most companies try to motivate employees to be ethical by stressing how doing so will benefit the corporation. The problem is, this amoral rationale is grounded in self-interest rather than morality. It has nothing to do with ethics.

Doing the right thing to get something in return is an investment, not a demonstration of character. Ethics based on self-interest is situational; ethics based on moral convictions is reliable. It’s the difference between acting ethically and being ethical.

Trying to motivate people to do the right thing by stressing benefits rather than values and virtue turns decision making into a cold cost-benefit analysis rather than a reflection of what’s right.

But if a company encourages employees to make decisions based on the supposed advantages, why should anyone put their firm’s interests above their own? In the absence of authentic moral conviction, why should employees refrain from unethical or illegal conduct if they think it will save their job or enhance their compensation? Clearly, what’s good for an enterprise is not always good for its employees.

My point is, it’s foolish and fruitless to expect most employees to sacrifice their financial well-being for the good of the company. On the other hand, many will do so in the name of honor, as a matter of conscience, and to earn the esteem and admiration of family and friends.

Corporations have a much better chance of deterring improper conduct by appealing to conscience and principle rather than risks and rewards.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

In an atmosphere dominated by raging competitive instincts, persuasive rationalizations, and real economic pressures, cynicism drowned out idealism. My notion of the legal system as a grand forum for the pursuit of truth and justice was reduced to the idea that, in the end, it was just an adversarial game with a less noble purpose: win!

But it’s not just lawyers who are vulnerable to mission drift.

The idealistic drive of people who enter politics to pursue their personal version of the public good can be crushed or converted by real politics. It’s not easy to solve complicated problems in a world dominated by clashing convictions, limited resources, out-sized egos, and consuming personal ambitions. And so, the acquisition and retention of power, initially the means to an end, becomes the end itself – the measure of success is winning.

If you’re involved in youth sports, you too may be the victim of mission drift.

Is youth sports really a recreational and educational activity designed to allow children to have fun and develop valuable life skills, or is it just an early field of combat teaching the lesson that it, in the end, it’s just about winning?

These questions are probed in a challenging online assessment designed by the Josephson Institute to identify the core beliefs and values of the parents who support their children’s involvement in sports and the coaches and other adults who administer the programs.

Take a look at the survey at www.charactercounts.org/sports.

I suspect some of you will find a gap between your ideals and the reality you create or condone.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Barry: Frankly, I don't think that we are obligated to take the supporters of the mosque at face value when it comes to their "intent," and even if it were reasonable to do so, a mosque at Ground Zero certainly could be (and would be) reasonably perceived by many to symbolize something very, very different (and something very, very negative). At best, the plan to build a mosque and Muslim community center at Ground Zero is ill-conceived, insensitive, and politically naive.

Moreover, neither the builders of the mosque, you, nor anyone else can define what the mosque would truly be a symbol of -- things are symbolic of what they are reasonably understood to be symbolic of. In this case, regardless of whether the true intent was genuinely to promote unity or something else positive, putting a mosque where the Twin Towers once stood is a powerful symbol (even if an unintentional one) that the terrorists have won by clearing out a symbol of American might (and values?) by violence so that it can be replaced with a symbol of Islam. And to many, for Americans to tolerate that would be much more a symbol of American weakness, stupidity, and gullibility than a re-affirmation of American ideals of pluralism.

If the Muslim community wants to show its sorrow, regret, and rejection of terrorism, it should erect a powerful and completely unambiguous expression of such beliefs (or, perhaps, a powerful, completely unambiguous symbol of American values), not something that is, at best, a self-serving mixed message and, at worst, a symbol of something the complete opposite of the purported message.

Michael: Presumably, the folks building the mosque and community center are American citizens. I do not think there is ANY doubt that they have a Constitutional right to build where they want and I refuse to assume bad faith because they are Muslims and they all act in bad faith.

I believe in the spirit of our Constitution and the notions of due process and respect for others regardless of their race, ethnicity, or religion, and I am convinced the attitudes supporting the prejudice against Muslims are fundamentally unconstitutional, un-American, and unethical.

Barry: Trying to focus the issue on whether at least part of the objections is based on racism (or, more accurately, anti-Muslim animus), which I concede is unquestionably part of the basis for the objections, ignores my primary points:

(1) While I don't believe that the supporters of the project are required to explain why building the mosque and community center on the site is anti-terrorist and/or pro-American, they have apparently chosen to do so. If, as I believe, the professed motives make no sense, I would categorize them as false, if not intentionally duplicitous.

Michael: It makes sense on several levels: 1) an affirmative effort to make it clear that all Muslims are not terrorists, 2) genuinely believing that Muslims died in 9/11, helped rescue folks, and serve in the Army, etc. justifies not accepting the emotional prejudice reaction 3) folks like Mayor Bloomberg and I accept this as a valid and right gesture that as Americans we should welcome.

Barry: (2) Regardless of the true motivations, building a mosque at Ground Zero sends a message which is diametrically opposed to the professed point of building it. At best, doing so is counterproductive and stupid -- and just because they have the right to be stupid, doesn't mean they shouldn't be criticized for being stupid.

Do you remember the scene in the movie Gandhi in which a Hindu man comes to Gandhi and asks him how he could avoid hell after murdering a Muslim child? Gandhi tells him to find a similar parentless Muslim boy and raise him as Muslim. No, I am not suggesting that there is an equivalency between the Hindu who went to Gandhi (who, himself, was the direct murderer of the Muslim boy) and any Muslim who was not personally responsible for 9/11; rather my point was that to the extent that a Hindu wants to atone for an injury to a Muslim (whether due to direct guilt or as a way of symbolically distancing himself from co-religionists who were guilty), he should do so by helping Muslims or building a monument to Muslims or Islam, not by building a Mandir or ashram. Likewise, if Muslims want to distance themselves from 9/11, building a mosque is simply the wrong way to do it.

Furthermore, proceeding in face of vehement opposition (whether or not that opposition is fair or not, or based on prejudice or not) is like Otto in A Fish Called Wanda (the character played by Kevin Kline) literally putting a gun to the head of Archie (the character played by John Cleese) in order to get Archie to accept Otto's "apology" for an earlier wrong. I'm sorry, but no matter how sincere Otto may have been, one has to "apologize" in a manner acceptable to the "injured party,” and when that doesn't happen, it is neither an apology, atonement, nor a symbol of solidarity. At the very least, it shows a high degree of insensitivity.

Michael: The insensitivity may be to the depth of genuine bigotry underlying much of the opposition and an underestimation (of which I am guilty as well) of how many smart and decent people would jump on the anti-Muslim passions.

Barry: (3) I agree that it is unreasonable, unfair, and "racist" to simply assume the all Muslims are liars, but if it’s true [as one YouTube video argues] that Islamic culture views duplicity as a perfectly acceptable tactic in the struggles against non-Muslims, is it unreasonable to give less credence to followers of Islam than to those from cultures who place a relatively higher societal value on truth?

Michael: I do not accept the taking of isolated quotations from individuals we know nothing about as statements that represent the mainstream of the culture or religion. There are many horrible passages in the Old Testament and many rabbis, priests, and popes who have said things that do not represent the core of their religions. It is like taking the comments of any Congressman/woman and concluding it represents the American point of view.

Barry: A fair point. Furthermore, there is no question that all Muslims have had to bear prejudice on account of the actions of some, and there can be no doubt that this is unfair, dangerous, and un-American. Still, can it be denied that the deafening silence of both individual Muslims and the Muslim community as a whole has lent credence to the belief that it is a matter of "them" vs. "us"?

Yes, many individual Muslims do preach brotherhood and tolerance and speak out against terrorism, but do they do so as frequently or vehemently as they should, especially when elsewhere their co-religionists literally dance in the streets to "celebrate" 9/11 and similar attacks? Doesn't the openness and extremity of the "wrong" responses by "bad" Muslims call for equally open and strong condemnations by "good" Muslim's to make clear what side they are on? Is it surprising or unreasonable that a failure to speak out clearly is taken as at least tacit approval of terrorism?

Michael: There may be powerful inside pressures and concepts of loyalty and unity explaining the relative silence which I agree is disturbing), but concluding consent from silence in this context is a stretch and another violation of our fundamental principles.

Barry: I do not dispute the constitutional right of the Muslim community to build a mosque and related buildings at Ground Zero, but rather both the sincerity of the professed motives and especially the wisdom of doing so. In the end, the issue is much like the question of whether the Nazis should have been allowed to march through Skokie -- maybe (indeed, probably) it cannot or should not be prohibited, but that doesn't mean that people have to like it or that those who act stupidly or irresponsibly (despite their right to do so), can't or shouldn't be criticized for doing so.

Michael: In the Nazi case the bad motives and the personal beliefs of the individual marchers were of little doubt, but it is our reaction that is more important than their motivation. I think the decision to allow such marches is a high point in American law and tradition while allowing the internment camps of the Japanese was a low point. I am much more concerned with our reaction. Even if the Muslims involved are as bad as the Nazis we should be un-intimidated and undeterred from supporting their right in this great land to be obnoxious.

Although shocked and seething, the woman remained silent as the man, without the slightest sign of shame or gratitude, quietly helped himself, matching her cookie for cookie.

When there was one cookie left, she watched in amazement as he picked it up, smiled at her as if he were being gracious, and broke it in half. He ate one half and gave her the other. Congratulating herself for maintaining her cool, she said nothing to this rude cookie thief, astonished at the nerve of some people.

Later, when she was settling into her seat on the plane, she rummaged through her purse and discovered the bag of cookies she’d purchased, still unopened. The moral message is contained in the poem’s closing stanza:

"If mine are here," she moaned with despair,
"Then the others were his, and he tried to share."
Too late to apologize, she realized with grief,
That she was the rude one, the ingrate, the thief.

Being sure is not the same as being right. Certainty without humility can lead to self-righteousness that distorts our view and understanding of the world and of people.

Humility does not require us to be equivocal or doubtful about our deepest convictions about religion and right and wrong. What it asks is that we hold and advocate our beliefs without dismissing the possibility that others may be right, too. Or, as in the cookie case, instead.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

*To read the full poem by Valerie Cox, click here.

I disagree with a sect of "politically correct" liberals who are often too quick to call others racists and bigots and who would ban speech they find offensive. But I am equally dismayed by a vocal branch of conservatives who seek to bully and intimidate anyone with differing perspectives. Both groups seem to prefer diatribes over dialogue, partisan politics over democratic principles. Sometimes, unencumbered by notions of fair play and respect, they generate lots of heat but not much light.

Consider the controversy surrounding a plan to build a 13-story mosque and Muslim community center near Ground Zero and dedicate it on September 11th. The date was deliberately chosen not as a slap in the face or stab to the heart, as some have chosen to interpret it, but as an explicit gesture of unity. According to its developers, including the American Society for Muslim Advancement, the mosque/community center is to be built with the express intent to promote "integration, tolerance of difference, and community cohesion through arts and culture" based on the Islamic values of "compassion, generosity, and respect for all."

Though Sarah Palin's request that New Yorkers and peaceful Muslims "refudiate" (that’s her word) the project has politicized the issue, this is not a matter on which liberals and conservatives should disagree.

Both continually cite and support the Constitution. How can anyone who understands our political system justify opposing a place of worship for the world's second largest religion simply because it is to be built within two blocks of the scene of a crime committed by a terrorist group who also call themselves Muslims?

Blaming all Muslims for the acts of a few is simply un-American.

The American way is to build bridges, not walls.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.
______________________________________________________

Notes:

I came across a particularly thoughtful commentary on this subject by scholar and historian Juan Cole on his blog Informed Comment.

Cole writes, “A tiny fringe cult destroyed the Twin Towers in New York, not Islam in general (a religion of 1.5 billion human beings which could well be the religion of 3 billion human beings by mid-century). A monument to Usama Bin Laden or al-Qaeda would be in poor taste. A mosque, built anywhere in the United States, is not.”

Cole goes on to explain the Islamic laws of war, which forbid sneak attacks and the killing of non-combatants, women, and children. He then provides several examples supporting his claim that “forbidding the building of a mosque in New York is inconsistent with the ideals of the Founding Generation of the United States of America, who explicitly mentioned Islam among the cases when they spoke of religious freedom.”

*

I was also impressed with an editorial by Kelly Hertz, Managing Editor of the Yankton Press & Dakotan. In "Our Opinion: A Mosque Near Ground Zero – Old Wounds,” Hertz writes:

“It must be understood everywhere that the current war on terror that was unleashed on 9/11 is not a war against Muslims. It is not another Christian crusade against a religion that is foreign to ours. Instead, this war is a response to an attack by Islamic radicals who do not represent the Islamic faith. To see it otherwise is to do an injustice to Muslims, to America and to the dead of 9/11, some of whom were also Muslim. . . .

"Thus, the building of a mosque/community center near Ground Zero should not be seen as a desecration of the memory of 9/11. The developers of the project say it is intended to celebrate a common humanity and harmony. And who can argue that those attributes need to emerge from the smoldering legacy of 9/11? . . .

"We are sometimes so overwhelmed by being wounded that we sometimes forget that we are Americans whose religious tolerance must rise above our emotions and our pain. Such a statement would stand as a greater symbol of this nation’s strength than any memorial or structure could ever represent."

So what could I say to 700 bankers, investors, and lawyers deeply involved in the commercial real estate market?

I started with a simple point: external economic forces beyond our control can diminish, even decimate, every form of financial asset, but the most important asset we possess, integrity, can only be destroyed by our own choices. And those who sacrifice integrity to save their fortunes eventually lose both.

I showed a cartoon with the caption: “This might not be ethical. Is that a problem for anybody?” to make the point that ethics is not simply a factor to consider; it’s a ground rule. People who treasure their integrity summon the strength to do the right thing even when it costs more than they want to pay.

Another cartoon depicted a conference table of executives. The head honcho points to a woman with an armful of blindfolds and announces: “Miss Jensen will now hand out the moral blinders.” The message: try as we might, we can’t avoid ethical responsibilities by covering our eyes. Our obligation to be honest, fair, and responsible doesn’t go away just because we refuse to acknowledge it.

Speaking of the turmoil before the American Revolution, Thomas Paine said, “These are the times that try men’s souls.” Well, tough times like these always try our souls and test our character.

The next year or so will be like a character boot camp where our moral backbone will be either strengthened or broken.

While we can’t know when, it’s absolutely certain that this dark period will end. And when it does, only those who protected and preserved their integrity will emerge with the credibility to restore everything they lost.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

His comment reminded me of a cartoon where one fellow confides to another, "I admire Webster’s honesty, but his insistence on being scrupulously honest is really annoying."

Look, I'm not an honesty absolutist. I think it was okay to lie to Nazis to save innocent lives, and I approve of police lying during undercover operations to catch drug dealers or corrupt politicians. I also think it's okay to tell your grandmother you really like the sweater she knitted or let young children believe in the Tooth Fairy.

But be careful. It's easy to stretch these special situations into an endless chain of rationalizations that justify lying whenever it's convenient.

Every lie must be justified by competing moral principles, not simply self-interest. Some lying during criminal investigations pass muster because they are subjected to judicial review and advance a long-term public good. And there are times when "white" lies can be justified when kindness trumps truthfulness.

Otherwise, being scrupulously honest is not only possible; it's desirable and morally mandatory.

Being basically honest is not enough. It's like saying, "I really want to be honest, but not if it costs too much, not if it prevents me from getting what I want."

Honesty is crucial, not only to uphold an abstract moral principle, but to preserve one of our most important personal assets – credibility. Despite self-serving excuses, almost all lies breach trust and undermine credibility.

Once someone lies to us, even on a small thing, we always think, "What else have you lied to me about?" How many times do you get to lie before you are a liar? How many times does someone get to lie to you before distrust sets in?

Being honest only when it suits our purpose isn’t honesty at all.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

"It’s a scam."
"Surely, these people have other options to begging."
"They’ll probably use the money for drugs or alcohol."
"How can I give to one or two and not all of them?"
"If I give tonight, will I have to give every other night?"
"If I give money, I’ll just encourage more people to be beggars."

When all is said and done, it’s a rather shameful exhibition of my ungenerous nature. Regardless of their character or hidden motives, these people are much less fortunate than I am. Why am I so unwilling to help? A dollar or two would be meaningful; $5 or $10 would be momentous.

The truth is, if every night I gave each one a dollar or even five, it wouldn’t affect my lifestyle one bit. I spend more than that on snacks and parking. If I made it a point to carry a bunch of ones and fives, I could, without fanfare, provide a little bit of peace or pleasure to people who need it much more than I.

As I write this, I am resolved to choose caring over judging. Yet there is a lurking self-doubt: Will I really follow through or just find more reasons not to help? Perhaps some of you are also willing to commit to kindness. If so, we can provide moral support for each other. Let me know what you think.

After all, our character is revealed not by our best intentions, but by our consistent actions.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

No, it’s not three; it’s five. Deciding to fly south and actually flying south are two different things. The life lesson is that you’ll never get where you want to go until you point yourself in the right direction, jump off the wire, and start flapping your wings.

To justify my unseemly size, I often tell people, “I’d like to be thin – especially when I’m not hungry. The problem is, when I’m hungry or tempted by a donut, I make excuses or rationalize by drinking a Diet Coke to offset the donut.”

Actually, I’ve been pretty good lately and have lost 30 pounds – but it’s never easy. Every single day I have to point myself in the direction I want to go and jump off that wire.

In the end, it’s not my goals that determine the quality of my life; it’s my actions. When there’s a conflict between what I want now and what I want for the future, the word “later” seems so much more attractive than “now” – but it’s not a good life strategy.

I love donuts, but I’ve never had one that was so good that the pleasure lasted for more than a few moments.

The key to a happy and healthy life is to resist urges and impulses for momentary pleasures that sabotage long-term goals. Lots of things that feel good aren’t good for us, and lots of things that are fun won’t make us happy.

Giving up the good "now" for the better "later" shouldn’t be seen as a sacrifice; it’s an investment.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

They said I was lucky my mom lived near,
But she was pretty old, and it wasn't so clear.
Sure, I was grateful for all she did for me,
But I was so very busy, I had no time free.

I had my job, my kids, my own life to live.
There really was nothing left for me to give.

I couldn't visit often, but I did help out.
I gave money, did chores, and ran her about.

But truth be told, I didn't like it that much.
The conversation was dull, and she was frail to touch.

She complained a lot, and I just felt worse.
I didn't have time to be handyman or nurse.

I could have done more -- of course I could --
But she loved me, and she understood.

I know she did because she told me so.
She wanted me to be happy -- and I pretended not to know
That she was lonely, uncomfortable, and scared of dying.
I closed my eyes to how hard she was trying
To be brave, independent, and not needy at all.
She assured me she'd be fine, even after her fall.

But now she's gone and I miss her so,
And I'm so sorry I pretended not to know
How much a call, a card, or a hug brightened her day,
Or how easy it was to chase her blues away.

I'm ashamed I felt burdened, pressured, and put out.
She deserved more than I gave her, without a doubt.

So if your mom or dad is still with you,
Don't lose the chance -- do all you can do.
Make the time, not excuses. Go the extra mile
Because your chance to do so lasts only awhile.

This is Michael Josephson, reminding you that character counts.

* After writing this poem as an attempt to convey the emotional states and stakes involved in the common challenge of dealing with aging parents, I realized many would think that the poem reflected my personal experience. It is not autobiographical. Actually, my mother died in her early 40s (I've talked about her cheerfulness and courage many times before). I meant to fool no one. As I remind my listeners and readers from time to time, I see myself not as a journalist but as a teacher. I often use discovered or created poems and parables to convey an insight or feeling that I think would inform, enlighten or uplift. We received quite a few requests for this commentary, and I sincerely hope I captured effectively the emotions of people who have actually been in the situation I describe.

I knew that was the risk when I told her. I could have said nothing and let her mother explain my absence, or I could have pretended to give in by saying that "I'd see" if I could get out of it.

Well, actually I couldn't. You see, I made a decision long before that I wanted to establish relationships of unquestioned trust with my children. And I knew that even well-intentioned lies, deceptions, and broken promises could be land mines to trust.

When she calmed down, she took a new tack: "Take me with you." When this didn't work, she came up with her final offer: "Then I want you to wear this tie." And she got a tie she had given me for Father's Day. It was a special tie, one that she'd drawn pictures on.

When I dressed for my trip, I thought of putting the tie in my briefcase and wearing one more appropriate. But a promise is a promise, so I wore the tie. During my talk I told the tie story in the context of trust, pointing out that while I was certain that my daughter would never know if I wore the tie or not, trust is too precious to take chances with.

When I returned the next afternoon, I went straight to my office. Later, my wife showed up in a surprise visit with Samara. She'd never done that before. When Samara saw I was wearing the tie, she beamed and gave me a huge hug. I was so glad I kept my promise to that little girl.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.