Ansel Adams: conservation under Reagan and Trump

It’s somewhat surprising, but not entirely, to see similarities between the administrations of Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump, particularly in their respective Secretaries of Interior, James Watt and Ryan Zinke. Another controversial appointee in the Reagan cabinet was Anne Gorsuch (mother of now Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch) who was the head of the EPA and acted to reduce the budget and staff of the EPA as well as lessen regulations on pesticide use. Watt and Gorsuch were the prominent anti-environmentalists (other than Reagan) in that administration, and luckily did not have broad support in the government for their agenda. Thus, the damage they were able to accomplish was relatively limited. However, other than Zinke in the Trump administration, there are several cabinet and cabinet-level members, in addition to Trump himself, hostile to the environment that, together, along with Tea Party Republican sentiments, form a stronger force for change than was possible in the Reagan era. These current members are Administrator of the EPA Scott Pruitt, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, and Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue.

I’ve steered away from politics on my blog with the intent to maintain a purely art-centric dialog. However, as with Ansel Adams and Ronald Reagan, so with Trump and his administration. Many artists, as well as anyone who visits public lands, whether a National Park, National Monument, National Forest, National Wildlife Refuge, or Bureau of Land Management, depend on, enjoy, and receive countless economic and non-economic (non-quantifiable) benefits from those visits and the experiences gained. In addition, surrounding communities benefit from the trade visitors from all over the world engage in while they are in the area. Lodging, all forms of general retail, equipment rentals, guide services, restaurants, grocery stores, auto repair and rental, airlines, buses, travel agencies, art supply stores, camera stores, outdoor and hunting supply stores, all local or at some remove from the particular area benefit from the establishment and maintenance of public lands. A much greater and sustainable benefit than resource extraction which, when completed, disappears leaving behind an economic and environmental wasteland. In the 1980s, with the appointment of James Watt as Secretary of the Interior under President Reagan, public lands came under fire for exploitation and privatization. Ansel Adams, who was by that time nearly 80 years old, became very active, politically, to address the very serious threat to our public lands. Throughout his life, Ansel was always in contact with his representatives and president. But when Reagan was elected and Watt appointed, he embarked on what opponents would call today a liberal rampage or a snowflake campaign. In letters to the editor, to conservation organizations like the Sierra Club and Wilderness Society, in interviews, and in letters to his representatives (I don’t know if he ever wrote to Watt or Reagan directly) he engaged in what he called in a 1981 letter to then Wilderness Society director William Turnage a “…TOTAL IDEOLOGICAL WAR ON SECRETARY WATT AND HIS COHORTS” (emphasis from the letter).

He was very concerned about the future of public lands, in particular National Parks, which were being considered for resource exploitation and privatization. In a letter to the San Jose Mercury News (1981), Ansel wrote (notice the similarities with the concerns of today, though today’s concerns I believe are even more real than they were then):

I have spent a good part of more than 60 years working with many others on the problems of conservation and the environment, beginning in 1919 as the summer custodian of the Sierra Club’s center in Yosemite. I do not intend, at the age of 79, to now stand back and observe the destruction of our environment and all that has been accomplished to appropriately preserve and manage the resources of the earth – the physical, recreational, and aesthetic qualities of the world in which we live…The present administration’s endorsement of free exploitation of our basic resources will have tragic consequences for the well-being of our people and the amenities of continued life on this earth. These dangerous new policies are expressed through Secretary of the Interior James Watt. I address my critical remarks directly to him as the spokesman of these dire policies…The impact of the fearful concepts and intentions expressed by Watt is not fully realized, except by a few experienced conservationists…Indeed, Mr. Watt acts ignorant about the park system that he now controls (and)…can do great damage just through ignorance of the facts of what our public lands represent…It is common knowledge that Watt is a religious fundamentalist. He has his right to embrace any religion or creed he desires, but he has no right to impose his religious philosophy on the management of his department and the future of the American People. I have heard that he justifies his program of using our land and resources now without regard for the future by saying, in effect, there will be very little future; the Second Coming is due any time now…The overwhelming problems of our economy and defense have taken precedence over consideration for our natural and cultural resources. I sympathize with the President in his difficult economic and political decisions. I implore him to recognize the important fact that if we lose the essential qualities of our environment no political philosophy and no effort for defense will have validity. Secretary Watt’s values appear restricted to the material, immediate, and profit-oriented mentality of a two-dimensional group with little wisdom or conscience…We are fighting for our life and the future of our descendants. We must stand up and be counted! As a citizen I urge each of us to take on responsibility: write members of Congress, Secretary of Interior Watt, and President Reagan; write or phone people you know and urge them to do the same. Impress on everyone you can that this is not just an “opinion” problem but the most intense threat we have ever faced to the integrity and future of our land.

In an interview with Playboy Magazine in 1983, not long before his death, Ansel Adams issued a quote that I and others have often repeated. The quote is part of a longer statement in response to the question “What is the most critical fight now?”:

To save the entire environment: wilderness protection, proper use of parks, breakdown of Federal operation of the parks in favor of private interests, acquiring new park and wilderness land, unrestrained oil drilling and mining on land and offshore, etc. First on the list now is that all the wilderness areas must be protected. It is very important. With the current Administration, they are gravely threatened. It means that the small inroads this country has made in protecting some areas, both for scenic beauty and for invaluable resources, are threatened.

Here is an important point: Only two and a half percent of the land in this country is protected. Not only are we being fought in trying to extend that two and a half percent to include other important or fragile areas but we are having to fight to protect that small two and a half percent. It is horrifying that we have to fight our own Government to save our environment. Our worst enemy is the person the President designated with the responsibility of managing the country’s environment: James Watt. No wonder it is a monumental battle.

We are experiencing today what Ansel Adams feared would happen in his time. We have already seen the lessening or removal of protections for migratory birds and endangered and threatened species, the allowing of toxic waste to be dumped into our streams and rivers and the spraying of known and previously banned toxic and harmful chemicals on our crops. We’ve already seen the declassification of public land specifically to allow for resource extraction. We’ve seen law enforcement and private contractors enlisted to protect commercial interests when they were clearly in the wrong (and proven so in the courts after the fact). We’re seeing attempts to defund and privatize our public education system which, I think, Ansel Adams would be angry about because education is a foundation for understanding the world, the complex relationships found in the environment we depend on and, thus, the foundation for understanding why we need to conserve and protect these areas. The parallels between the Reagan era administration and the Trump era administration is curious at least, frustrating, and in the end, infuriating, because there are many more in this current administration who previous to being appointed to their positions, were adamantly opposed to the function of the agencies they now control. Trump has stacked the deck in a way Reagan could not have. Back in the 80s, the fight was mostly against Watt and Reagan and, to some extent, Gorsuch. Today, the fight is with nearly the entire administration as well as Congress.

Ansel was able to use his considerable weight as a prominent artist and activist to influence those in power who could do something. We average citizens must rely on our combined weight to inundate our representatives with facts and fact-based opinions. We must use our individual power of the vote to replace those we disagree with with those who support continued progress and economic growth, the conservation of our environment and the protection and proper management of public lands, the protection of human rights and individual freedoms, and reasoned discourse and cooperation with those who have differing opinions and ideologies. These may seem to be disparate subjects, but they are all related and connected. We live in a more complex world than we did in the 1980s. We can’t just let others do the work for us. We have to speak up before it’s too late. Once the land is gone under an open pit, oil field, or resort development, we can’t get it back.

reference: 1984. Ansel Adams: Letters and Images 1916-1984. New York Graphic Society, Little Brown

Real World Client Relationships

It’s not just a photography thing, creatives all over experience this at one time or another, some more than others. The client who wants to “make a deal”. Here is a very well done video illustrating some of the pitches creatives get from clients. A “friendlier” variation of the Harlan Ellison video.

Citizen Conservation – saving our land from the Government

In November, the NY Times reported on the Bush Administration’s intent to open up land in southern and eastern Utah, some near Arches and Canyonlands National Parks, to oil and gas extraction (details here).

On December 19, a 27-yr-old University of Utah economics major foiled a Federal oil and gas lease auction by winning bids on 149,000 acres of proposed lands, 22,000 of which lie near Arches and Canyonlands National Parks in southern and eastern Utah.

Tim DeChristopher won 13 bids, totaling $1.8 million and encompassing 149,000 acres. He is required to pay $45,000 to retain those bids, but is under investigation by Federal authorities for fraud since he had no intention to go through with the deal or to use the land for the intended purpose of the auction. His goal was to hold the land until the next administration took over and possibly reverse the decision to open the scenic land to oil and gas drilling.

A very bold move and one to be applauded. This issue is very contentious, not only between the government and conservation groups, but even between US Agencies, specifically the BLM and National Parks Service. You can read that in the NY Times article linked to above. It seems obvious this is one of a series of last ditch effort by the current administration to take a stab at conservationists as they go out the door, knowing they may not have much chance once the new administration takes over.

I applaud Tim’s effort and I hope it succeeds, if only to draw more attention to this type of swift maneuvering by a shady administration. Admittedly, these kinds of shenanigans occur with every administration and none are immune, as far as I can tell. But, how often does regular Joe Citizen get to have a say?

Here’s one of those rare moments when one person says “hey, this is important and I think I should do something since nobody else seems to be able to”. It was creative, non-violent, and I’m sure the rules will be changed in the future to prevent this sort of thing from happening again, but the word got out (and is getting out). One person can make a difference.

I think the citizens of the U.S. are waking up from their complacency of depending upon the government, trusting the government to act in their best interests. And, we have become a bit sleepy over the past few decades of prosperity. I think smart citizens can, non-violently, participate to help and to call attention to issues that are not getting the coverage or priority they should because someone in the upper echelons of power don’t think it’s important for us to know (or don’t want us to know, until it’s too late).

As a photographer, I was more than irritated to read the NY Times article and discover the intent to scar a valuable viewshed in the southwest. I’ve only been to the Arches area twice, but do intend to visit again. And, even if I wasn’t ever planning to return to that area I would hate to know that the surrounding areas had become an industrial park, ruining the opportunity for not just photographers, but other visitors, to enjoy the pristine views.

So, to Tim DeChristopher: Good job.

Fear will destroy us

The Washington Post today printed an article about the ability of the TSA (Transportation Safety Administration) and DHS (Department of Homeland Security) to seize and hold for off-site inspection any electronic storage device and/or written documents for an unspecified time without any reason of suspicion or wrongdoing.

This means iPods, laptops, cell phones, hard drives, USB flash drives, beepers/pagers, CDs/DVDs, video and audio tapes, written documents, books, papers, pamphlets and other written materials commonly referred to as “pocket trash” or “pocket litter”.


“They’re saying they can rifle through all the information in a traveler’s laptop without having a smidgen of evidence that the traveler is breaking the law,” said Greg Nojeim, senior counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology. Notably, he said, the policies “don’t establish any criteria for whose computer can be searched.”

Customs Deputy Commissioner Jayson P. Ahern said the efforts “do not infringe on Americans’ privacy.” In a statement submitted to Feingold for a June hearing on the issue, he noted that the executive branch has long had “plenary authority to conduct routine searches and seizures at the border without probable cause or a warrant” to prevent drugs and other contraband from entering the country.

end exerpt

When do we get to the point where we hear the words “Papers, please” whenever we cross a state border, enter a neighboring town or city, board a bus, train, get into a taxi, or are just walking down the street? When do we start seeing public service announcements on television exhorting us to keep an eye on our neighbor and report suspicious activities? When do we start hearing “Patriotic” radio announcements?

To what extent are we going to allow our government to rule by fear, to convince us that we’re under constant threat and need to allow the government to keep their grubby hands in our business?

I’m not an extremist nor do I think the world is a happy place. I agree that reasonable measures need to be taken to protect innocent people from whack jobs anywhere, American or otherwise. But, come on. If you piss off a TSA or DHS guard at airport security they could make your life miserable in an instant for no other reason than a made-up “suspicion”. Granted, airport security has had this ability for years. But, it seems that the administration has been encouraging a more aggressive use of this discretionary power and there is no recourse for the innocent citizen if that power is abused. There should be checks. There should be criteria for reasonable suspicion.

Senator Russell Feinghold is planning to introduce legislation to require reasonable suspicion and prohibit profiling based on race, religion or national origin.

When a government encourages its citizens to react based on fear, its motives come into question. The U.S. government used fear to promote nationalism in WWII, but the threat was obvious. And, look what happened…..internment camps for Japanese Americans. Based on fear. We round up individuals and groups today, ship them off to an island prison away from prying eyes, hold them without recourse or reason for however long the government wants. Some may think it’s necessary until it’s them or a family member or friend that gets snatched up.

The threat is not so obvious today, either because the threat (as drilled into us by the current administration) is not as imminent as described, or because it is truly hidden (covert). Our government doesn’t inform us about the threats, the thwarted attempts or other progress, only that we’re under attack from all sides and we have to build a wall around our country and ourselves for protection. We have to give up our freedoms (little by little) so we can be safe, so we can be more dependent upon the government to tell us what’s good and what’s bad (or else).

I’m not sure who I should be more wary of anymore, terrorists or my own government. The line is beginning to blur.

Photographers, don’t get greedy

I received a request earlier today (sent globally to a group I belong to, not specifically to me) for a photograph of a local landscape feature to be presented as an award by the city to a donor of land which will help expand and preserve open space. At the end of the request was this statement

“Presumably, the City will pay for t[h]is, but don’t get greedy. Remember, it’s taxpayer dollars.”

I had to read it twice (and I still have to re-read it to make sure I’m getting it right). Don’t get greedy. I don’t think I’ve ever met a photographer, or seen an estimate for work, that could be considered “greedy”. Greedy photographers are, for one thing, probably not pleasant to work with (I imagine, I’ve never worked with one, so that’s just my opinion). I extrapolate this opinion from all those greedy companies that keep calling wanting free stuff from me. For another thing, greedy photographers aren’t likely in business very long. Word gets around, you see.

I replied with the following response:

I appreciate your request, and unfortunately, probably don’t have the image you’re looking for. But, I have to take offense to your “don’t get greedy” comment.

Professional photographers, like me, are more than willing to “donate” photographs to causes we believe in and it’s up to the individual photographer to determine the pricing of their work. A professional photographer, making their living from their skill and talent, rarely gets the opportunity to “get greedy” when pricing their work for sale or license. Those photographers who understand what it takes to be (and stay) in business price their work and the fees for their skill and talent accordingly and to the market in which they sell their work, regardless whether the buyer is a multi-national corporation, a local non-profit, or “taxpayers” through local, county, or national government. If photographers “got greedy” they would not make it very far in the business.

I’ve sold many prints of my work to city governments for display in their offices and never have I been asked to not “get greedy”. I think it’s an insult intimating that photographers take advantage when the truth, in my long experience, is the other way around.

It’s also a fact that you will likely find someone willing to provide the image you request for nothing, or nearly so. I would encourage you to not take advantage of this and perhaps offer some payment in return, regardless, as a thank you and a gesture that you understand what an image is worth.

Photographers, particularly fine art photographers, are constantly asked by perfectly legitimate causes to donate works for fundraising auctions or their skills to document an event. Honestly, if I could make a living giving my work away I would do it. I think many photographers would feel the same way. I would still be a wildlife biologist if the work was available and I could survive on $10/hour.

But, life requires money and we can’t work for free. I don’t think people working for an employer realize how different it is paying 100% for health insurance and not getting bi-weekly deposits into the old bank account. But, that’s for another time.

I love doing what I do, most of us do. We hate being taken advantage of or having our work marginalized by those who think a snapshot is the same thing as a fine art print and/or both are as easy to create.

I’ve been trying for 3 years to get a shot of the area in the request (and similar locations). I live 25 miles away from that location. When the lighting conditions are right, you have to be there and that can be problematic if you don’t live right there. If it’s just a snapshot they want, then there are plenty of those available. If it’s something special, then I’m afraid they’ll have to pay (reasonably) for it.

So this is for both the potential client out there and the wanna-be (or subsisting) photographer. For the client, stop taking advantage of (or demanding) free. That’s all that should need to be said about that.

For the photographer, learn the business and charge a reasonable fee so you can continue doing what you enjoy. A simple start is to calculate your Cost of Doing Business, what it takes to maintain your business at break even every day. This is especially important for those of you currently living on full-time or part-time jobs. If you aspire to be a full-time “Pro”, I think you’ll be surprised what it’s going to take to maintain your current lifestyle and stay in business once you lose that security. Price your skills and talent and your work right now as if you’re dependent upon it. It’ll make the transition that much easier.

For those of you without aspirations to be full-time professionals, calculate your Cost of Doing Business anyway. Why give your work away for nothing? If someone asks for it, it has value to them, shouldn’t you receive something for that? Giving it away sends a powerful message that you don’t value your own work. If you can get paid for it, you can use it to purchase that new lens you’ve been salivating over. Otherwise, you’ve got to spend your valuable time trying to convince your spouse why it’s better to buy the lens from your regular salary. I hope they are supportive of your “hobby”.

My work is mine – quit trying to take it

The proliferation of social networking sites boggles the mind. They all claim to be the best, most popular, most important, to your business growth, networking, getting jobs, showing your work, all that.  Which ones are actually worthwhile? Who knows? How much time do you spend/waste finding out? It takes a lot of effort to create a presence on a social networking site. I’d say about the same, or more, effort than it does to get eyeballs to a website. And, eyeballs do not equal clients or sales. In that area, your website probably is a better outlet for attracting the eyes of those companies you really want to attract, not the looky-lou’s frequenting MySpace and Flickr.

But, that’s not the only thing you need to think about. Make sure you read the Terms of Service (TOS) very closely, paying special attention to the copyright and usage sections. Many will stipulate by uploading content of any kind you give the owners of the site the non-exclusive, world-wide, royalty-free license to distribute, create derivative works, even re-license, the works you upload to the site.

Most social networking sites, by default, toss your content into the Creative Commons license pool, unless you specifically designate your content as private (which on some sites require a premium subscription – read, pay for it – is an example). If you don’t read the TOS carefully and find out where you designate the license model you want to use, you could be in for a bit of a shock down the road when you find your rights managed image is now being used as royalty free. That’s a sticky situation.

I place a copyright notice watermark with my name and website on all my images posted to the web. The advent of Orphan Works and these sneaky TOS make it unsafe to leave your images just lying about like money on the street.

However, these social networking sites are also quick to point out that they are rigorous in defending their intellectual property rights by stating you are in no way and by no means granted any permission, right, or ability to use, modify, redistribute, license or otherwise manhandle any content, code, trademarks, or other copyrighted material of the site.

Seems a bit one-sided doesn’t it?

Read carefully. Then make up your own mind.

Fashion and Photoshop – What’s Real?

We all know advertisements for cosmetics and clothing are unrealistic, in terms of the physical “ideal” these ads are attempting to portray. As much as we despise them and understand their fakery, they still influence how we look at one another and how we want to appear and be looked at.

I think these following links to videos showing the extremes of body shaping and “make-over” that can be done to a given image is both educational (in terms of the capabilities of Photoshop) and an eye-opener. We rely on our eyes to view our world and inherently accept most of what we see as real.

When body images are manipulated to such an extent as to barely, if even, resemble the original person, how do we interpret that? Does our belief then change to thinking everything we see in print and online is fake, or modified to some extent? I know some of my photography is thought to be manipulated when it is accomplished through a manual process. Others have told me their images have been questioned (and also their honesty) when telling viewers their images of brilliant colors or fantastic, unique, situations, are not modified.

Does that pass on to how we perceive real, flesh and bone, people? How much of that person’s body is real and how much is augmented or taken away, covered up or re-shaped? Does all this manipulation of pixels and flesh create a society that believes nothing is real? If nothing is real, what has meaning? We question ourselves (are we good enough, beautiful enough, smart enough, successful enough?) and we question others (are they real? what is their motiviation? aren’t they good enough? don’t they think highly of themselves? they’re taking advantage).

Regardless, these videos are interesting. Make up your own mind. The Magic of Photoshop – “look like a supermodel” 3:30 The Evolution of Beauty 1:00 Slob Evolution (of course the obverse is true) 1:15

Adobe Photoshop Express Online – Rights Grab

Adobe announced it’s online beta version of Photoshop Express, which provides limited image processing online for photo sharing, etc. You can check it out at

HOWEVER, it’s highly recommended you read the terms of service VERY carefully. And be advised, there are 3 linked documents of terms you need to read, not just the summary page that the initial link brings up. Here’s the gist through excerpts (remember my recent post about contests?):

“You agree to use the Services and the Materials only for purposes that are permitted by the Terms and any applicable law, regulation, or generally accepted practices or guidelines in any applicable jurisdiction (including any laws regarding the export of data or software to and from the United States or other applicable countries) (“Law”). ”


“Except as indicated to the contrary in any applicable Additional Terms, Adobe hereby grants you a license to view, download and print Materials provided by Adobe (“Adobe Materials”) and any Materials provided by Users (“User Content”), except for Shared Group Content, subject to the following conditions:

  1. You may access and use the Adobe Materials and User Content solely for personal, informational, non-commercial and internal purposes, in accordance with the Terms;
  2. You may not modify or alter the Adobe Materials or User Content;
  3. You may not distribute or sell, rent, lease, license or otherwise make the Adobe Materials or the User Content available to others;
  4. You may not remove any copyright or other proprietary notices contained in the Adobe Materials or User Content; and
  5. You may not copy or distribute any photos, graphics, audio or video (“Images”) in the Adobe Materials or User Content apart from their accompanying text. “

BUT (and this is a very large BUT – my bold emphasis):

“Adobe does not claim ownership of Your Content. However, with respect to Your Content that you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Services, you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, derive revenue or other remuneration from, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other Materials or works in any format or medium now known or later developed.”

What does this mean? You can upload your photos to process, store and share. You cannot use any other content other than your own (unless the other users specifically state their photos are in the public domain, you can’t use any of Adobe’s content. But, by uploading your photos you grant Adobe permission and license to use your photos in any way they please, which means to license them to others (without payment to you), use them on their (Adobe’s) packaging, advertising, website, magazines, whatever they choose (without payment to you), FOREVER and ever.

These terms are similar to a neighborhood covenant stating if you park your car on the street or in your driveway you grant your neighbors the right to drive your car whenever they want, wherever they want, to keep it for as long as they want, even to sell it or rent it out to someone outside the neighborhood, repaint it, wreck it, return it with the tires or other accessories missing or with an empty gas tank, all without any compensation to you.

So, if you choose to use this service, be very careful what image files you upload. For the professional, this is very important (not likely that many pros will use this service, though), and even for the amateur this is a big deal. The wording in the terms of service (And Adobe here is not alone, you need to check other TOSs carefully as well; Facebook is another that has this wording, Flickr and MySpace as well). You can’t even watermark your images because the wording above gives Adobe (and whomever else displays this type of wording in their TOS) the right to remove it without penalty.

Amateur photographers, whether they care about making money from photography or not, should be aware that companies using their images for commercial purposes should pay for that use.

Reading reams of legal terminology is not an enjoyable task. But, doing so can save you a whole lot of grief down the road. Nobody is looking out for you but yourself. Pay attention.

What’s in a personality?

Lately I’ve been too busy and/or not inspired to post anything to the ol’ blog. The holidays, various projects, and life’s intervention conspire to keep me from my fans.

Tonight I happened to be browsing the web, researching one of those projects, and came across a blog that had one of those links you sometimes follow just because you’re a little bored doing what you’re doing and want to take a break. Well, that link was to the Myers Briggs Personality Test.

This is a test so you can understand your personality type, which has as its base either introvert or extrovert and four additional psychoses, I mean, behaviors, such as Intuition, Sensing, Feeling, and Thinking. There’s a free basic test on the website and I guess you can pay for a more in-depth review of your inner brain if you wish.

It’s certainly interesting to find that the behavioral tendencies of the entire human race fall within essentially 8 psychological profiles. Actually, since I read them all, I think most of us straddle maybe 2 of those profiles depending on our mood at any given moment. And, while the descriptions seem to be relatively accurate, how objective is the test, really? I’m not a psychoanalyst, so don’t believe a word I say, but these tests do seem to me to have a bit of the self-fulfilling-prophesy about them. I suppose these profiles are developed after decades of talking with thousands of folks, both normal and wholesome and twisted and demented. That’s not the scientist in me talking, pay no attention.

I wonder what it does for me to find out what I pretty much already know about myself, unless this information is to wake me up to the fact that there are other people out there besides the ones that piss me off. Wait a minute. Maybe there is something there. You mean to tell me that if I knew what a person’s psychobabble profile is I could interact with them better? Employers could respond to the needs of employees in a more satisfying and rewarding manner? Businesses could tailor their customer service to provide the best service to the widest range of clients?

Hmmmm. Maybe it would help if all wore our MBTI code on our clothing. “Hi, I’m INTJ. Oh, I see you’re ENTJ……………………”

I added a new blog link category….business….and its first link. It’s to Seth Godin’s blog, well worth a read, he has some very good views on business that apply to everyone. Check it out.