Is it just me or does "I'm the decision maker" sound more like the half drunk loser husband bringing to bear his physical advantage to claim control over his uppity wife?
I've taken some time off from writing lately in effort to shake a bad case of cynicism but there seems to be nowhere to hide these days. I figured I would slip off somewhere and find something less dire to talk about but then I get that "deck chair on the Titanic" feeling and find myself back where I left off. It just seems to damn important to ignore.
Folks, we have people in the highest levels of this Government who quite possibly could be delusional. Senator Durbin's assertion about Vice President Cheney, although part and parcel to politics, could in fact be true. It appears we may be witnessing what this man is actually made of, a "never say die" personal constitution that if allowed to fragment would spell the end for him. He may be willing to sacrifice anything to avoid this, including the welfare of this country.
Now on to president Bush, whether directed or his own volition, his State of the Union Address included the requisite acknowledgements and concessions one would expect under the circumstances except for the war in Iraq where their will be no compromise. The "I'm the decision maker," statement seems to have signaled the end to the more thorough explanations. It's damn the Generals,Baker,Hamilton and the torpedoes time for this President.
So who's will is really being exerted here? I can't help believe that this statement does come from his heart but, it by no means seems the natural way to communicate it. In fact, at this point in his Presidency I suspect Mr. Bush longs far more for retirement than owning any more responsibility for the Iraq war.
Remember that President Bush has had to rely on others to tend to virtually all matters involving foreign affairs. Since 9/11/2001 he has essentially handed the reigns over to appointees, who have in effect bungled the job. What I gather from this statement is that, particularly without Rumsfeld around, he is letting Cheney and others know two things, we'll go it your way one more time but after that I am the boss, "the decision maker." Of course it could just be that I'm stupid and just being too damn optimistic.
In a strange way it's too bad that he didn't have his current level of experience when he was elected. He very well might have been a better President.
And now it's payback time for The President and unfortunately the country for bad decisions. In the Presidents case for not knowing his limits and, the country for lack of due diligence. After all we elected someone who without being the son of a former President could indisputably never have won. What we perceive to be safe decisions cushioned with familiarity often are not. We just get old recycled ideas even if they failed in the past. It's time to say goodbye to this clan and all their associates once and for all.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Dems Get Gavel
I'd give anything to know how it turns out for the new Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. I was able to watch most of the ceremony and I must admit being a little spellbound watching her. She did an admirable job being gracious and looking the part though she did seem to absorb the adulation a little more in line with someone who had just won a beauty pageant. Hopefully this was just a nervous way of dealing with a once in a lifetime event and not some insatiable thirst for this kind of thing. Give her some slack, right, after all I'm watching the anointment of the first woman Speaker in the history of the country. Maybe, but as a citizen I'm in need of knowing if it's all about the country or all about Nancy Pelosi. Fair or not, she is being asked to "right the ship," after a period of Government shenanigans that rivals the Warren G. Harding administration, so the stakes are unusually high. For now I'm all eyes and ears.
The grand kids surrounding her was a stroke of genius for unexpected reasons. They busied up the images so her high energy squirming, twitching and lip biting wasn't so noticeable.
When it came to the speech I'm glad she mentioned the troops in Iraq as soon as she did even though none of the first 100 hours will be spent on them.
Actually as she spoke, the administration was at work teeing up some thousands of more soldiers for Iraq in one last effort to salvage whatever is left of President Bush's ego. They also continue to eye the War Powers Act and now even postal laws to magically increase they're authority. Do you think a spirit of partnership can work to curtail these plans?
Congressman Henry Waxman heading the House Government Reform Committee is exciting. I wonder if he had anything to do with Vice President Cheney looking grumpier than usual or President Bush's more than normal, "the lights are on but no body's home," appearance with Chancellor Merkel today.
As usual, time will tell but, I'm sure glad we are at least trying something new.
See, ethics is something that good people posses. It's that nature-nurture concoction that make some people unable to live with themselves unless they follow the straight and narrow. In groups these people understand the value of a commitment to something greater than oneself. Once it takes hold it has the potential to be truly great and the servants and the served reap enormous reward.
The Minority Leader elect John Boehner said something telling when introducing Speaker Pelosi. Referring to ethics on the part of the Republicans he said, "...when they lose sight of this they begin writing a ticket to minority status." This is the "big stick" approach to the straight and narrow and it doesn't work. It's not surprising it came from the side that lost. Bad guy's aren't team players and maintaining the majority is not enough to keep them honest.
Hopefully the new leadership will see the difference and start some meaningful reform because if you can't fix this then nothing else matters.
The grand kids surrounding her was a stroke of genius for unexpected reasons. They busied up the images so her high energy squirming, twitching and lip biting wasn't so noticeable.
When it came to the speech I'm glad she mentioned the troops in Iraq as soon as she did even though none of the first 100 hours will be spent on them.
Actually as she spoke, the administration was at work teeing up some thousands of more soldiers for Iraq in one last effort to salvage whatever is left of President Bush's ego. They also continue to eye the War Powers Act and now even postal laws to magically increase they're authority. Do you think a spirit of partnership can work to curtail these plans?
Congressman Henry Waxman heading the House Government Reform Committee is exciting. I wonder if he had anything to do with Vice President Cheney looking grumpier than usual or President Bush's more than normal, "the lights are on but no body's home," appearance with Chancellor Merkel today.
As usual, time will tell but, I'm sure glad we are at least trying something new.
See, ethics is something that good people posses. It's that nature-nurture concoction that make some people unable to live with themselves unless they follow the straight and narrow. In groups these people understand the value of a commitment to something greater than oneself. Once it takes hold it has the potential to be truly great and the servants and the served reap enormous reward.
The Minority Leader elect John Boehner said something telling when introducing Speaker Pelosi. Referring to ethics on the part of the Republicans he said, "...when they lose sight of this they begin writing a ticket to minority status." This is the "big stick" approach to the straight and narrow and it doesn't work. It's not surprising it came from the side that lost. Bad guy's aren't team players and maintaining the majority is not enough to keep them honest.
Hopefully the new leadership will see the difference and start some meaningful reform because if you can't fix this then nothing else matters.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Sizing up 2006
As I begin yet another year I can't seem to shake that tugging feeling to size up the year passed. Though not in the memory jogging, January to December tick-off of events kind of way. I find more interesting anything that seems to drive the behavior which the expression of, will be immortalized for 2006.
I think that the balance between the haves and the have-nots may ultimately decide the fate of the planet so it is naturally worth some attention each and every year.
Political systems that harnessed the power of the natural desire to improve ones own lot in life seemed to have had plenty of success.
The places with less of this struggled along with those with few resources and limited experience exploiting the resources they did have. Societies in these stages tend to "cut the tall flowers," so to speak, so the overall restraints to improvement are large.
In the U.S. where the gap has become a valley between the haves and have-nots, the poor don't starve and the society for the most part encourages success but, the shift toward the haves knowledge based economy creates a formidable barrier for entry for the have-nots.
The haves on the other hand seem to remain confounded as to why the have-nots don't simply recognize that the haves inched their way up and they can to. What the haves will never concede is that an ever increasing number of them never were have-nots in the first place. Strangely the ones that skipped the penniless origins, often tend to offer the most advice to the penniless on the subject.
All the while 40 million people have no health insurance and one trillion was spent on health care last year of which 500 billion was spent on the last 10 days of life. I'm no mathematician but for congress to carry on about where to start the negotiating for a minimum wage increase for less than two per cent of the population doesn't leave me all that hopeful
You know my feelings about Iraq. It was a mistake in a variety of ways but the ancillary issue of 2006 is Iran. We had to euphemistically describe what we thought Saddam Hussein had as "weapons of mass destruction," to invade Iraq. We won't have to do that in Iran. We'll know exactly what they have and if it's not good we likely won't be able to do anything about it because we are spent, both politically and financially. If the economy stays robust, the war in Iraq turned around and we made some progress repairing our image around the world it will be two years before we could do anything about Iran. On the positive side it may be a good thing because it will force this administration to work diplomatically for two years and then they'll all be gone.
Which brings me to my last issue for this post. Why does the U.S. Dollar continue to hit lows against all major currencies? This is another conundrum whose birthday was in 2006. Far be it from me to try to call the reason for currency fluctuations but given what appears to be guesswork by the economists I read, I'll share my opinion.
I've seen many periods over the years when the dollar remained strong when it shouldn't have, and had it explained that due to the perceived on balance strength of the U.S relative to the rest of the world, with risk being part of every investment equation, people simply preferred to hold U.S. dollars. Why would I not now believe that the opposite is the case.
I think that the balance between the haves and the have-nots may ultimately decide the fate of the planet so it is naturally worth some attention each and every year.
Political systems that harnessed the power of the natural desire to improve ones own lot in life seemed to have had plenty of success.
The places with less of this struggled along with those with few resources and limited experience exploiting the resources they did have. Societies in these stages tend to "cut the tall flowers," so to speak, so the overall restraints to improvement are large.
In the U.S. where the gap has become a valley between the haves and have-nots, the poor don't starve and the society for the most part encourages success but, the shift toward the haves knowledge based economy creates a formidable barrier for entry for the have-nots.
The haves on the other hand seem to remain confounded as to why the have-nots don't simply recognize that the haves inched their way up and they can to. What the haves will never concede is that an ever increasing number of them never were have-nots in the first place. Strangely the ones that skipped the penniless origins, often tend to offer the most advice to the penniless on the subject.
All the while 40 million people have no health insurance and one trillion was spent on health care last year of which 500 billion was spent on the last 10 days of life. I'm no mathematician but for congress to carry on about where to start the negotiating for a minimum wage increase for less than two per cent of the population doesn't leave me all that hopeful
You know my feelings about Iraq. It was a mistake in a variety of ways but the ancillary issue of 2006 is Iran. We had to euphemistically describe what we thought Saddam Hussein had as "weapons of mass destruction," to invade Iraq. We won't have to do that in Iran. We'll know exactly what they have and if it's not good we likely won't be able to do anything about it because we are spent, both politically and financially. If the economy stays robust, the war in Iraq turned around and we made some progress repairing our image around the world it will be two years before we could do anything about Iran. On the positive side it may be a good thing because it will force this administration to work diplomatically for two years and then they'll all be gone.
Which brings me to my last issue for this post. Why does the U.S. Dollar continue to hit lows against all major currencies? This is another conundrum whose birthday was in 2006. Far be it from me to try to call the reason for currency fluctuations but given what appears to be guesswork by the economists I read, I'll share my opinion.
I've seen many periods over the years when the dollar remained strong when it shouldn't have, and had it explained that due to the perceived on balance strength of the U.S relative to the rest of the world, with risk being part of every investment equation, people simply preferred to hold U.S. dollars. Why would I not now believe that the opposite is the case.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
American Hegemony
I got books for Christmas, lot's of books, and after reading a few chapters of each I'm reminded once again that we can't blame the Ills of the world on a lack of knowledge. It's all there for the taking and clearly many of the serious miscalculations of today could be avoided by studying the past. No, we don't repeat mistakes because the necessary information to avoid them is unavailable, we repeat mistakes because we're lazy, deceitful or incompetent. How many times must we hear some version of Santayana's "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," before we'll learn?
President Gerald Ford's unfortunate passing provided some focus on the Vietnam War and Watergate era once again. Seeing Donald Rumsfeld and his sidekick, a 34 year old Dick Cheney at the heart of the Ford Administration was surreal. How do a couple of young guy's like this get to be Secretary of Defense and Chief of Staff? I think these selections are as insightful as the pardon of President Nixon into the mind of President Ford.
It doesn't matter now, they got the jobs and the rest is history, but it is incomprehensible that they were the guy's who supposedly had a large role in fixing the country after "our long national nightmare."
So, we have historical information in abundance, we have continuity with actual players from the previous period and guess what, we're right back where we were then except for the embarrassing conclusion.
There are theories galore and the spirit of the times, sort of "perfect storm," wielded notable influence along with a bungled con job that should make the keystone cops feel proud but, in my humble opinion, what drove the decision to invade Iraq was no more than good old fashion American hegemony. From here it masquerades as a hard to shake subtle sense of superiority arrived at by observing your immediate surroundings and believing that it is the highest level attainable. When you become this certain that your ideology is the right one and therefore the answer to the many problems that face all of the human race, you get giddy with the desire to share it with the world. Once they see how brilliant you and your ideas are, they will gladly accept their subordinate role and you will have strengthened America in the process, right? Wrong!
Isn't it strange how the psychology of those who wish to rule and those who resist being ruled is so similar yet neither ever seem to consider it. A clear eyed view always seems to come too late and this is no exception. It actually makes some sense that Cheney and Rumsfeld would wind up in such a predicament. As it turns out their true abilities were concentrated in their political skills. And the incompatibility of good judgement and political skill becomes clearer over time. I wonder if history will record that Cheney and Rumsfeld returned us to our "long national nightmare."Only if the historians are intelligent enough to wring hegemony out of the truth.
President Gerald Ford's unfortunate passing provided some focus on the Vietnam War and Watergate era once again. Seeing Donald Rumsfeld and his sidekick, a 34 year old Dick Cheney at the heart of the Ford Administration was surreal. How do a couple of young guy's like this get to be Secretary of Defense and Chief of Staff? I think these selections are as insightful as the pardon of President Nixon into the mind of President Ford.
It doesn't matter now, they got the jobs and the rest is history, but it is incomprehensible that they were the guy's who supposedly had a large role in fixing the country after "our long national nightmare."
So, we have historical information in abundance, we have continuity with actual players from the previous period and guess what, we're right back where we were then except for the embarrassing conclusion.
There are theories galore and the spirit of the times, sort of "perfect storm," wielded notable influence along with a bungled con job that should make the keystone cops feel proud but, in my humble opinion, what drove the decision to invade Iraq was no more than good old fashion American hegemony. From here it masquerades as a hard to shake subtle sense of superiority arrived at by observing your immediate surroundings and believing that it is the highest level attainable. When you become this certain that your ideology is the right one and therefore the answer to the many problems that face all of the human race, you get giddy with the desire to share it with the world. Once they see how brilliant you and your ideas are, they will gladly accept their subordinate role and you will have strengthened America in the process, right? Wrong!
Isn't it strange how the psychology of those who wish to rule and those who resist being ruled is so similar yet neither ever seem to consider it. A clear eyed view always seems to come too late and this is no exception. It actually makes some sense that Cheney and Rumsfeld would wind up in such a predicament. As it turns out their true abilities were concentrated in their political skills. And the incompatibility of good judgement and political skill becomes clearer over time. I wonder if history will record that Cheney and Rumsfeld returned us to our "long national nightmare."Only if the historians are intelligent enough to wring hegemony out of the truth.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Denied The Gloat
It seems like yesterday that being against the war in Iraq was tantamount to being a Communist. I love the financial world analogies so here goes. It must be time to sell the losers, buy the winners and bury the details deeper than anyone reads. In time people forget about the poor performance and only remember owning the right stocks.
In politics, at the behest of the strategists, you serve up the crow as early as possible, eat it shamelessly, knowing that time will work in your favor. When it counts, they will have nicely positioned their clients barely a nose behind the real courageous and independent thinkers, who actually were against the war when it mattered. I don't know about you but I sure wish I had the, "If I knew then what I know now, I would have...", way out of a few of the bad decisions I've made.
What I'd really like to hear now is the internal dialog of the ones who knew better but didn't have the personal fortitude to hold to their convictions. The loss of gloating rights must be painful.
On the subject of lost gloating rights, the predicament of the century has to go to former President George H.W. Bush. Here is what he said after the gulf war. He did not give the the order to overthrow the Iraqi Government because it would have, "incurred incalculable human and political costs... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq".
Talk about an unfortunate alignment of the stars. Imagine the work that goes into suppressing the urge to spread far and wide the "I told you so's." The only thing in the world that could prevent him from doing so would be the current situation.
In politics, at the behest of the strategists, you serve up the crow as early as possible, eat it shamelessly, knowing that time will work in your favor. When it counts, they will have nicely positioned their clients barely a nose behind the real courageous and independent thinkers, who actually were against the war when it mattered. I don't know about you but I sure wish I had the, "If I knew then what I know now, I would have...", way out of a few of the bad decisions I've made.
What I'd really like to hear now is the internal dialog of the ones who knew better but didn't have the personal fortitude to hold to their convictions. The loss of gloating rights must be painful.
On the subject of lost gloating rights, the predicament of the century has to go to former President George H.W. Bush. Here is what he said after the gulf war. He did not give the the order to overthrow the Iraqi Government because it would have, "incurred incalculable human and political costs... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq".
Talk about an unfortunate alignment of the stars. Imagine the work that goes into suppressing the urge to spread far and wide the "I told you so's." The only thing in the world that could prevent him from doing so would be the current situation.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
But will they vote green?
I watched Bill Moyer's, "Is God Green" the other night. In between then and now I've taken a few jogs on the beach and can report that I couldn't find a 10 foot stretch of shoreline without a piece of plastic trash, washed up from a recent storm. A mile south the tide pools that teemed with life and fascinated me as a child are all but gone. I'll never be able to show these to my children and no late conversion of opinion will ever change that.
While it's encouraging to know that 63% of Evangelical Christians now believe that climate change is real, somehow I think that the other 37% represents the real danger. This is where the power hungry, corrupt and unprincipled remain. They hold on to their beliefs for far different reasons than the ones who saw fit to change sides.
Here you will find people who mine the Sciptures for what serves their needs and absolve themselves of any accountability in the name of Jesus. This is where arrogance confuses being closer to God with being God-like.
To think that there are people who believe that doing anything to slow down the process of fouling the earth is interfering with the will of God, is incomprehensible for me. We hear Senators saying, "global warming is the greatest hoax in history" and a young recently converted environmentalist Christian saying to the effect that she always thought "they" took care of the environment and we didn't. They being ''the tree hugger's-the liberals." Or the other convert saying that "he never made that connection between the Creator and Creation before. This is but a sample of the mind boggling statements made in this program.
I know that it will perhaps never be perfectly clear whether or not climate change is man made. Call me crazy but just in case it is, isn't it reasonable to include that possibility when deciding what should be done about it. The debate has been refocused on who's right and who's wrong about the cause and the issue itself goes unaddressed.
I know "Is God Green" is mostly about the progress being made and I'm thankful for that, but in a bittersweet way. See, when I was a kid I always felt a sense of pride picking up that one maybe two pieces of trash which instantly returned the beach to it's pristine and beautiful condition. Sunday I picked up 20-30 and it wasn't even noticeable. One kid then could do more than the whole world can do today.
So 63% of 20-30 million Evangelical Christians now think that Global Warming might be a problem. I wonder how they feel about the Trash Vortex? If we have to wait for Evangelical Christians to vote "Green" then we have got a long wait.
While it's encouraging to know that 63% of Evangelical Christians now believe that climate change is real, somehow I think that the other 37% represents the real danger. This is where the power hungry, corrupt and unprincipled remain. They hold on to their beliefs for far different reasons than the ones who saw fit to change sides.
Here you will find people who mine the Sciptures for what serves their needs and absolve themselves of any accountability in the name of Jesus. This is where arrogance confuses being closer to God with being God-like.
To think that there are people who believe that doing anything to slow down the process of fouling the earth is interfering with the will of God, is incomprehensible for me. We hear Senators saying, "global warming is the greatest hoax in history" and a young recently converted environmentalist Christian saying to the effect that she always thought "they" took care of the environment and we didn't. They being ''the tree hugger's-the liberals." Or the other convert saying that "he never made that connection between the Creator and Creation before. This is but a sample of the mind boggling statements made in this program.
I know that it will perhaps never be perfectly clear whether or not climate change is man made. Call me crazy but just in case it is, isn't it reasonable to include that possibility when deciding what should be done about it. The debate has been refocused on who's right and who's wrong about the cause and the issue itself goes unaddressed.
I know "Is God Green" is mostly about the progress being made and I'm thankful for that, but in a bittersweet way. See, when I was a kid I always felt a sense of pride picking up that one maybe two pieces of trash which instantly returned the beach to it's pristine and beautiful condition. Sunday I picked up 20-30 and it wasn't even noticeable. One kid then could do more than the whole world can do today.
So 63% of 20-30 million Evangelical Christians now think that Global Warming might be a problem. I wonder how they feel about the Trash Vortex? If we have to wait for Evangelical Christians to vote "Green" then we have got a long wait.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Larger Government? Please...
Let me start by saying that I'm no fan of Government run anything. The assertion that the government can run any organization better than the private sector is simply ridiculous. I didn't always feel this way, my idealistic origins had me spend 16 years working for the Government proving it to myself. Now, do I believe that we should start dismantling all Government run operations? It doesn't really matter because it is clearly impossible to do that, largely because it is simply insurmountable. These are massive culturally entrenched institutions that have evolved superior defenses. It is every public job in this country. No, they most assuredly aren't going anywhere soon.
But what about private companies like Enron or Worldcom? Disasters of course, but they did finally go down in flames. There was a beginning and and end and there was plenty of ways to look into what was going on. It took some time but that transparency ultimately brought them down. This simply does not exist in Government. I could go on and on about the waste and the secret settlements that are paid to people who are wronged (or think they were) by inside actions that never see the light of day. But, by far the real culprit is the ongoing steady erosion of performance that results from the vacuum that the Government operates in. This amounts to unimaginable billions squandered over the years.
For those of you who operate in the private sector imagine for a moment that the sales staff no longer generates the revenue. (Send them home, or sorry you can't, you'll need to absorb them into other functions.) Revenue just sort of shows up. No gross profit, no net ; margins? who cares, no profit or loss, and ebidta? forget about it. It's like being in a white room with no doors. It's what brought down the Soviet union.
It almost makes you feel sorry for them. But not really, because if you don't receive the benefit they do, your being played for a fool. To make things worse, the delusion they live under makes them odd citizens believing that an honest days work is less than it really is. Because they don't work as hard for their money, they don't think anyone else should either. This gets incorporated into society in many ways and becomes a national handicap and remarkably your tax dollars pay for it.
Now back off Mr./Mrs. Government employee who happened to stumble on this site. I am fully aware that there are hordes of you who are overworked and underpaid. But this is likely a result of what you brought with you, like a strong commitment and work ethic, not what you learned while your there. You are the ones that keep the Government running. I considered myself one of you, working myself to death while others coasted. I had a choice, become one of them or leave. I left and never regretted it.
I think that if you think for a second you'll agree that a lot of people at work don't come close to pulling their weight. But unlike the private sector nothing ever comes along to dislodge them from the system. I think I was one of the good guys but got tired and left as many do. This just concentrates what's left. This is in large part the insidious nature of large organizations without proper checks and balances.
So, what do you do? If your in a position to effect the size of government, think small. This is the ultimate case where less is more. If a politician suggests the need for a new committee or agency or department or whatever he calls it, realize that they probably don't have any answers and are buying time until the storm passes, then they'll do whatever they want. It's good old fashion lip service. Don't underestimate the power of the bureaucracy, growth is power and power is survival. You've heard it before, the bureaucracy runs the Government and it is by far more interested in serving itself than serving you. Try to elect leaders that are willing to deal with it.
Don't accept inferior service, demand to speak to a supervisor or their supervisor, raise hell, call your congressman if necessary.
Also remember that when you see the high dollar settlements, typically for discrimination or sexual harassment know that their are thousands of lesser amounts routinely paid for claims resulting from poor management. When you find yourself taking the bait, going along for the ride analyzing the fairness of some settlement amount, you have probably lost the point. The point is, incompetence. The inability of your Government to conduct itself properly. Given the way it is designed, it simply cannot improve unless the people it is supposed to serve speak up.
But what about private companies like Enron or Worldcom? Disasters of course, but they did finally go down in flames. There was a beginning and and end and there was plenty of ways to look into what was going on. It took some time but that transparency ultimately brought them down. This simply does not exist in Government. I could go on and on about the waste and the secret settlements that are paid to people who are wronged (or think they were) by inside actions that never see the light of day. But, by far the real culprit is the ongoing steady erosion of performance that results from the vacuum that the Government operates in. This amounts to unimaginable billions squandered over the years.
For those of you who operate in the private sector imagine for a moment that the sales staff no longer generates the revenue. (Send them home, or sorry you can't, you'll need to absorb them into other functions.) Revenue just sort of shows up. No gross profit, no net ; margins? who cares, no profit or loss, and ebidta? forget about it. It's like being in a white room with no doors. It's what brought down the Soviet union.
It almost makes you feel sorry for them. But not really, because if you don't receive the benefit they do, your being played for a fool. To make things worse, the delusion they live under makes them odd citizens believing that an honest days work is less than it really is. Because they don't work as hard for their money, they don't think anyone else should either. This gets incorporated into society in many ways and becomes a national handicap and remarkably your tax dollars pay for it.
Now back off Mr./Mrs. Government employee who happened to stumble on this site. I am fully aware that there are hordes of you who are overworked and underpaid. But this is likely a result of what you brought with you, like a strong commitment and work ethic, not what you learned while your there. You are the ones that keep the Government running. I considered myself one of you, working myself to death while others coasted. I had a choice, become one of them or leave. I left and never regretted it.
I think that if you think for a second you'll agree that a lot of people at work don't come close to pulling their weight. But unlike the private sector nothing ever comes along to dislodge them from the system. I think I was one of the good guys but got tired and left as many do. This just concentrates what's left. This is in large part the insidious nature of large organizations without proper checks and balances.
So, what do you do? If your in a position to effect the size of government, think small. This is the ultimate case where less is more. If a politician suggests the need for a new committee or agency or department or whatever he calls it, realize that they probably don't have any answers and are buying time until the storm passes, then they'll do whatever they want. It's good old fashion lip service. Don't underestimate the power of the bureaucracy, growth is power and power is survival. You've heard it before, the bureaucracy runs the Government and it is by far more interested in serving itself than serving you. Try to elect leaders that are willing to deal with it.
Don't accept inferior service, demand to speak to a supervisor or their supervisor, raise hell, call your congressman if necessary.
Also remember that when you see the high dollar settlements, typically for discrimination or sexual harassment know that their are thousands of lesser amounts routinely paid for claims resulting from poor management. When you find yourself taking the bait, going along for the ride analyzing the fairness of some settlement amount, you have probably lost the point. The point is, incompetence. The inability of your Government to conduct itself properly. Given the way it is designed, it simply cannot improve unless the people it is supposed to serve speak up.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Norman Livermore Jr.
I've always been curious about what shapes peoples opinions. I remember going to college and being struck by, actually slammed head-on into, a wall of divergent points of view. One of the most perplexing was about the environment. The urban city types, with little access to open space were all for preserving as much as possible. The rural or country folks with access to loads of it, felt that the mere idea was in itself threatening. There were many ways to explain this but that's how it was.
I made this connection with then Governor Ronald Reagan. Besides coming from a rural background he wasn't shy about saying some very threatening things about the environment. One prime example was "A tree is a tree, how many more do you have to look at."
Being the idealistic young city dweller, I don't know what made me more uneasy, final exams or Ronald Reagan. Everything he said or did was an affront to my sensibilities. An interloper who had no right to call California home.
Somehow, Reagan selected Norman Livermore Jr, as head of what was the equivalent of the state Environmental Protection Agency. Mr.Livermore died this last week at the age of 95, he was a good man.
I'm sure Mr. Reagan knew he was an environmentalist in corporate clothing but to his credit picked him anyway. In short, although very different, these men through mutual respect and collaboration went on to achieve some great things together.
Often thought of as a poor environmental performer, Reagan with Livermore, in fact succeeded in what would become Redwoods National Parks and the vetoes of the Dos Rios Dam and a Tran-Sierra Highway.
In the case of the Dos Rios Dam, Livermore set up a meeting with Reagan and the Indian tribe who's spiritual grounds would have been flooded along with hundreds of farms and ranches. Reagan, moved to tears, turned against the project saying, "We've broken to many damn treaties."
Like I've said before, my disagreements with Reagan's policies outweigh my agreements but, as his political career progressed I had a sense that we'd be OK because inside he was a decent human being.
There is a big difference between Reagan and our current situation. He was big enough to allow to be led around by his nose for a while if needed to come to the right decision. This takes some intellectual depth and a personal constitution.
For the future, the members of his party can invoke his name all they want but without the equivalent they've got nothing. And for now it's clear that there are no Ronald Reagan's serving in this administration.
I made this connection with then Governor Ronald Reagan. Besides coming from a rural background he wasn't shy about saying some very threatening things about the environment. One prime example was "A tree is a tree, how many more do you have to look at."
Being the idealistic young city dweller, I don't know what made me more uneasy, final exams or Ronald Reagan. Everything he said or did was an affront to my sensibilities. An interloper who had no right to call California home.
Somehow, Reagan selected Norman Livermore Jr, as head of what was the equivalent of the state Environmental Protection Agency. Mr.Livermore died this last week at the age of 95, he was a good man.
I'm sure Mr. Reagan knew he was an environmentalist in corporate clothing but to his credit picked him anyway. In short, although very different, these men through mutual respect and collaboration went on to achieve some great things together.
Often thought of as a poor environmental performer, Reagan with Livermore, in fact succeeded in what would become Redwoods National Parks and the vetoes of the Dos Rios Dam and a Tran-Sierra Highway.
In the case of the Dos Rios Dam, Livermore set up a meeting with Reagan and the Indian tribe who's spiritual grounds would have been flooded along with hundreds of farms and ranches. Reagan, moved to tears, turned against the project saying, "We've broken to many damn treaties."
Like I've said before, my disagreements with Reagan's policies outweigh my agreements but, as his political career progressed I had a sense that we'd be OK because inside he was a decent human being.
There is a big difference between Reagan and our current situation. He was big enough to allow to be led around by his nose for a while if needed to come to the right decision. This takes some intellectual depth and a personal constitution.
For the future, the members of his party can invoke his name all they want but without the equivalent they've got nothing. And for now it's clear that there are no Ronald Reagan's serving in this administration.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Both sides of compromise
When I started this a month or so ago I had no idea what effect it would have on me. It seemed a good way to capture some of those thoughts that dart around in my mind. It does that well and it also quite nicely addresses the "use it or lose it" concerns I have about my brain. My typing skills are coming along to. The surprise is how quickly the time passes when I'm doing it. I have always found this to be a good measure of how much I enjoy doing something, so I guess I'll be at it for a while.
The problem is that it's a little bit of a trap for someone like me because I believe in the old saw, "If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well." Actually it's probably more of a compulsion than a belief. You know the type!
Now this could have remained as an unorganized internal dialog locked up in my head or an organized personal journal locked up in my computer but, I chose blogging because of the sounding board prospects it offers. Just like any thoughtful conversation, it's interesting to see how your thoughts do or don't resonate with people. So at some point I'll have to start doing something toward that goal. I've looked into it a bit and see that the process of spreading the word about a blog is like many other things, a compromise. It begs for categorization. To be found you need to be part of a group of some kind especially with this type of blog. That's my problem, what kind of blog is this? I really wish I didn't have to decide. I hate the thought of having to choose a side of any kind, especially the ones that have to do with politics. Look at how few people switch sides after they choose one.The thought of being wrong, a common "flip-flopper," causes untold numbers of people to live a lie.
I recently out grew some book shelves and built some more. A friend from Boston happened to be visiting as I was restocking them. Proudly, I invited her to take a look at my handiwork. She looked but I noticed she was perusing more than my shelves. A whole slew of sounds were coming out of her. Some were pleasant some not so, then a fervent "My God, you have an Ann Coulter book." Feeling a little imposed on and defensive I said yea, look over here, one of your old favorites, David Horowitz, (The Professors), "He's a traitor", she said. Because the majority of the recent political sort of books on the shelf were of the more liberal variety she gave me a pass and said," There's still hope for you." That's why I cant pick a side. The only thing I hate more than compromise is not being able to.
The problem is that it's a little bit of a trap for someone like me because I believe in the old saw, "If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well." Actually it's probably more of a compulsion than a belief. You know the type!
Now this could have remained as an unorganized internal dialog locked up in my head or an organized personal journal locked up in my computer but, I chose blogging because of the sounding board prospects it offers. Just like any thoughtful conversation, it's interesting to see how your thoughts do or don't resonate with people. So at some point I'll have to start doing something toward that goal. I've looked into it a bit and see that the process of spreading the word about a blog is like many other things, a compromise. It begs for categorization. To be found you need to be part of a group of some kind especially with this type of blog. That's my problem, what kind of blog is this? I really wish I didn't have to decide. I hate the thought of having to choose a side of any kind, especially the ones that have to do with politics. Look at how few people switch sides after they choose one.The thought of being wrong, a common "flip-flopper," causes untold numbers of people to live a lie.
I recently out grew some book shelves and built some more. A friend from Boston happened to be visiting as I was restocking them. Proudly, I invited her to take a look at my handiwork. She looked but I noticed she was perusing more than my shelves. A whole slew of sounds were coming out of her. Some were pleasant some not so, then a fervent "My God, you have an Ann Coulter book." Feeling a little imposed on and defensive I said yea, look over here, one of your old favorites, David Horowitz, (The Professors), "He's a traitor", she said. Because the majority of the recent political sort of books on the shelf were of the more liberal variety she gave me a pass and said," There's still hope for you." That's why I cant pick a side. The only thing I hate more than compromise is not being able to.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Give it three days
I'm forever trying to better understand human nature. It's the mechanism that most effects the information we receive so I like to try different ways to study that process. Sometimes it helps to find something analogous, long established and a little closer to science. Then move some parts around, make some substitutions and see what you get. I chose Economics for this example.
Maybe human beings operate like the business cycle. Boom to bust or bust to boom. Starting with a dearth of ideas, they're motivated into creating some. For a while there are good ones and just about enough to go around and all is well. But demand rises and the good ideas can't meet the demand. Many more people enter the market to try and supply them. Most of the new and even some proven suppliers end up dropping the quality and charging more. Slowly people don't see the value anymore and leave the market. Inventories build, prices slump and we start all over again.
OK, not the perfect analogy but, we sure seem to be in a hastily conceived, low quality information phase. It roles effortlessly off reporters tongues, off the pages of the newspaper or the Internet. It's clearly a commodity that gets dreamed up to fill air time or copy and is designed to liberate dollars from advertisers pockets and not much more. It drives a whole industry of short term opportunists who complicate matters so, were fooled into believing in their value and that there is a point or purpose to it all.
Mind you, I have nothing against them. There are many fields that have accomplished the same thing. Making people believe they need something you make has always been an important part of the growth in the economy. But as always, information should be met with healthy skepticism. It should be seen for what it is.
The following example is an oversimplification but this reminds me of a lot of the stories of today.
Remember last Christmas, the young woman who's boyfriend called the authorities to report that she had swallowed her cellphone and was having trouble breathing. When questioned she said "he wanted the phone and she wouldn't give it to him, so she attempted to swallow it." I remember thinking, now this is some genuinely odd behavior. 3 Days later a follow up story appeared . "A woman who police thought had deliberately tried to swallow her cellphone during an argument with her boyfriend was apparently the victim of an assault. It appears she didn't voluntarily swallow this phone." Now that made some sense.
Maybe a 3 day waiting period or rest before we even consider the news would be beneficial.
Maybe human beings operate like the business cycle. Boom to bust or bust to boom. Starting with a dearth of ideas, they're motivated into creating some. For a while there are good ones and just about enough to go around and all is well. But demand rises and the good ideas can't meet the demand. Many more people enter the market to try and supply them. Most of the new and even some proven suppliers end up dropping the quality and charging more. Slowly people don't see the value anymore and leave the market. Inventories build, prices slump and we start all over again.
OK, not the perfect analogy but, we sure seem to be in a hastily conceived, low quality information phase. It roles effortlessly off reporters tongues, off the pages of the newspaper or the Internet. It's clearly a commodity that gets dreamed up to fill air time or copy and is designed to liberate dollars from advertisers pockets and not much more. It drives a whole industry of short term opportunists who complicate matters so, were fooled into believing in their value and that there is a point or purpose to it all.
Mind you, I have nothing against them. There are many fields that have accomplished the same thing. Making people believe they need something you make has always been an important part of the growth in the economy. But as always, information should be met with healthy skepticism. It should be seen for what it is.
The following example is an oversimplification but this reminds me of a lot of the stories of today.
Remember last Christmas, the young woman who's boyfriend called the authorities to report that she had swallowed her cellphone and was having trouble breathing. When questioned she said "he wanted the phone and she wouldn't give it to him, so she attempted to swallow it." I remember thinking, now this is some genuinely odd behavior. 3 Days later a follow up story appeared . "A woman who police thought had deliberately tried to swallow her cellphone during an argument with her boyfriend was apparently the victim of an assault. It appears she didn't voluntarily swallow this phone." Now that made some sense.
Maybe a 3 day waiting period or rest before we even consider the news would be beneficial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)