Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, or Whatever Greeting You Prefer

I just spent a few days with my family, and I kind of wanted to take a moment to wish everyone well. :)

I took my dogs up with me, and borrowed my step-mom's recumbent bike to help wear them out.  (One of them is so energetic that he needs this, and I am getting a bike of my own.)  This, btw, is an old picture of my dogs after they wore each other out playing all day. 

The black one is Precious.  I got her from my little (I do Big Brothers Big Sisters) when my little could no longer keep her.  I've had Precious for a little over a year now.

The brindle is Noble.  I got him two or three months ago, and he's the one that I'm getting the bike for.  

To round it all out, here's are some pictures of my cats as well. :)

Current Events, We Didn't Start the Fire, Don't Know What to Say (But I'll Say a Lot Anyway)

It seems like the world is spinning out of control.  Gone crazy.  (And yet...everyone always feels that way, and the world has always been like this.  Right?)

Michael Brown's death in Ferguson, Eric Garner in New York City, and now two cops are killed.  In revenge?  Retaliation?

Slogans and t-shirts abound.  "Black Lives Matter"  "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" "I Can't Breathe" "Breathe Easy, Don't Break the Law"  "I Can Breathe"  "Hands Up, Don't Loot"

So many of these have an undertone of anger, hatred, and an unwillingness to see the other's point of view. 

Someone got in trouble for saying "All Lives Matter", because the slogan is "Black Lives Matter", and changing it detracts from the main focus. 

Yet all lives DO matter, it's just that we're particularly concerned about black lives at this moment.

I don't really know what I could say that would be little more than hot air.  Something said to show I've picked my side, something anyone on the other side will automatically dismiss. 

I imagine how someone whose mind is already made up would tune me out the minute I start to say something they can peg into a slot.

Oh, here's the argument that _____.  That people who aren't breaking the law have nothing to fear.  Or that black people feel particularly abused by the police, and have reasons to be less trusting. 

They've heard it all, and dismissed it already.  What really matters, to them, is that the dead men committed crimes.  Or that the police were protected by a system that didn't even seriously investigate the incident.

And now, with this cop-killing, it makes it even worse.  (Aside from the tragedies of their losses, and the pain inflicted on their families and loved ones.)

Sony Hack, North Korea

In more modern news, I finally started tuning in to the Sony hack.  When I first heard about it, it seemed like more of the same old, same old.  Some company gets hacked, private data is revealed, security is horrible, *yawn*.

Then I heard people mutter 'act of cyberwar', and 'North Korea'.  And there's been a lot of disgruntlement that a silly little dictator of a mostly irrelevant country could somehow stifle artistic freedom.

I never even heard of this movie until the hack, but now if I knew of a place that was showing it I would definitely go.  Just to stick it to whoever thought it was a good idea to go to such lengths over a silly little movie.

A LOT of people I know feel the same way.  It's freedom of speech and artistic license, and you shouldn't mess with it.

I posted this on facebook, but this is what I would like to see happen.  I would love it if someone 'leaked' the entire movie online.  I know a certain clip has already leaked, but the whole movie should be put out there as well.  I'm sure more people would watch it online than would ever have watched it if it had been released like normal.

Second, if movie theaters are unwilling to play it due to fear of litigation (which seems kind of cowardly, except I know some idiot would sue if they were injured while at a theater because of this...so I'm not sure I can blame them.  That's a discussion for another time.)

Right.  So if movie theaters are unwilling to play The Interview for security reasons, I think every military base should offer to play it at the theaters they have on base.  Just make sure everyone goes through the security at the gate, and be prepared for long lines and whatnot.

And if someone tries attacking a military facility over the movie, you will quite clearly have your act of war. 

History, Context, Religion, "The More Things Change..."

I've been reading Zealot, a book that tries to get at the historical Jesus.  I like books like this - I feel like we miss so much of the context of the time when we try reading our modern, English language Bibles.

Particularly since the original Bible was written in an entirely different languge, in an entirely different period of time, where people had no reason to care about or insist on historical accuracy.

Truth is, I think such writing offers a richer and more nuanced understanding of God.  It's less...

Close-minded. 

And in many ways, more miraculous.  It's not hard to see and understand what draws people to a leader.  Conventionally.  Just look at our rock stars and pundits.  You need someone charismatic.  Someone who looks good, and presents well.  Someone who makes everyone feel like they're your friend. 

Someone who gives the impression that they can come in on a white horse, and save the day.  Someone who is larger than life, greater than everyone around them.

Which fits in rather well with our modern world.  Cowboys, superheroes.  The people who seem to get ahead are the ones who successfully fit the mold.  And they cater to what we want to hear, present what we want to be told. (Even if they are actually worse at leading, worse at saving the day.  In Jim Collins' research, having a CEO get hired in order to save the business was often a sign that things were about to get even worse.  He described a type of leader completely at odds with the cowboys and saviors that make so many headlines...and yet company boards of directors, financial news reporters, headhunters, and those who decide who gets promoted all still seem to fall for the narrative of someone larger than life who comes in to save the day.)

So how interesting, that in the Bible Moses is not a good speaker.  Some say he stuttered, or had a speech impediment, but it looks like the exact quote was "But my Lord, never in my life have I been a man of eloquence, either before or since you have spoken to your servant. I am a slow speaker and not able to speak well" (Exodus 4:10)

And even more interesting that God kept insisting Israel worship Him and Him alone, when the Israelites clearly kept wanting to worship a god the way everyone else all around them did.  Why give such a strange and unusual rule?  Something so different?  Novel, even?

But I digress.  I am reading Zealot, and it's interesting how much the events of that time can be reflected in the world today.

I'm having a hard time saying where, and how, other than that it's a time of turmoil in which the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.  Certain sentences and phrases keep resonating, as I think "that's true of the world today."

Some of the contextual history makes me think of the jihadists of today, and I'm not sure what I think about that.  This idea that the Zealots (not Jesus, but the movement shortly after his ministry) are so remarkably similar to the jihadists of today.  From the insistence that everyone must worship God the way they say is required, to their willingness to assassinate, to the divisions and fault lines as certain zealots claimed others weren't right-minded, or were in it for themselves.

In that time and place, the movement was squelched when Rome came in and burned it all down.

Yet that was then, and that was Rome.  

Evil, Justice, Hitler, Etc

I should be asleep.  Given that I've been waking up at 4am for work, I've been trying to go to bed by 8pm.  But I started a good book today - In the Garden of Beasts, and I realized that if I didn't type this out I would be composing it in my head instead of sleeping.

In the Garden of Beasts is written by the same guy who did The Devil in the White City, which I definitely recommend.  This time, he is writing about what the American Ambassador to Germany and his daughter witnessed during Hitler's consolidation of power. 

It's fascinating, because instead of using what we now know happened with Hitler, Erik Larson is using the letters and notes of these individuals at the time they were there.  In other words, you get a better sense of why the things we know in hindsight weren't so obvious at the time.

What's fascinating is that something normally a good trait (i.e. our willingness to suspend judgement, to assume that there are mitigating factors, etc) can be used to fool us. 

There are people who are trying to warn everyone - the Ambassador, his daughter, the world - that Nazi Germany is rearming, is intent on starting a war, and is serious about coming up with a 'Final Solution' i.e. killing off all the Jews.  And yet so many people didn't want to believe it, or didn't see it, or were able to dismiss certain rumors and stories because things looked so normal and they didn't see it themselves.

And yet we don't normally want people to accept rumors and hearsay.  Don't really want people to assume the worst and act on it.  That can create dangers all their own.

In a way, it reminds me of other things.  Of the unwillingness to believe someone would sexually harrass another.  The unwillingness to believe the police have a history of acting badly towards minorities.

Yes, there's a danger in assuming someone is guilty without a real investigation.  There's a danger in publicly shaming or harming the innocent, simply because people believe things they hear.

And yet there's also a danger in assuming people couldn't possibly fill in the blank.

Which kind of brings me to the notion of justice.  Difficult though it is to be unbiased, and to get true justice, the attempt to get the facts and truly figure out what happened or is happening is necessary.  Critical, even.

Otherwise, its just a matter of who has the power to get what they want.

Democracy, Biases, Self-Interest

I think the Founding Fathers had a pretty good read on human nature, so they set a system up that tried to take our own foibles into account.

I am not so sure it works, in the long run.  It's amazing how we can laud democracy in the abstract sense, talk about how wise the public is in choosing who they do...

and in the more specific sense, there are a lot of people who don't seem to know what they are talking about, or are poorly informed, and it seems amazing that we get anywhere at all.

But I didn't start writing this post to go into all of the curious blend of optimism and pessimism I have when watching our political process in action.

I brought it up because I wanted to talk more about self-interest, and biases, and what makes our system work.

We have this whole separation of powers thing, all these different competing groups, because the whole idea was that the competition between these groups would prevent any one faction or branch from dominating.  Worried about the power of the presidency?  Let's appoint a Supreme Court justice for life.  And insist that Congress approve.  Worried about a legislature that's out of control? Give the president veto power.  Worried that public opinion will be easily swayed by emotions and poorly thought out yet popular programs?  Add in an electoral college, and a Senate that (originally at least) was appointed by state governments rather than popular vote.  Worried that your less populated states will dominate politics unfairly?  Make half your legislature based off population.

Worried that the effect of that will crowd out less populated states?  Give each state two senators in the other chamber of legislature.

This whole intricate system is supposed to keep government working, not because it's necessarily perfect (it can be messy, and slow), but because the self-interests of each different group should help balance out the growth in power in another group.

Students of American history apply this concept to all sorts of things.  They may decry the rise of presidential power, because they think we are losing that balance.  Or discuss the freedom of the press as yet another balancing force.  One not created in the Constitution, but one that plays its role.

We have a system where individuals can have a say, which is pretty amazing.  Yet more and more people feel like it's broken.  (Though many feel it's broken in different ways...so it's not like there's unity on which way we should be going)

How can a democracy work when people don't participate, and don't vote?  When political parties get a stranglehold on the system, making it harder for third parties to rise?  When parties seem to be more and more polarized, and cater to the extremes of each side?

I'm not even talking about the role of money here, though any internet search will find plenty of articles on it.

And how do we come to a consensus on good policy, when self-interest dictates certain policies even at the expense of the whole?

That's a problem that's been with us throughout all of human history...

It's too easy to get cynical and depressed, to think everyone is always out for themselves and that it's unrealistic to expect anyone to think of the greater good.  Especially when we can be so subtly biased. 

Take any class on human cognition, or logic, and you'll discover how horribly illogical we all are.  How easy it is to get biased, to jump to conclusions.  To only listen to those who agree with and confirm our existing beliefs, and to shut out and deny the ones who challenge what we think.

And yet somehow, history shows that this isn't always what happens.  That sometimes people do listen to evidence, and change their minds for clear and logical reasons.  That sometimes leaders do act for the greater good.

How did we ever come to value logic, and the role of the devil's advocate, and all these other things if human nature is so determined to be self-centered, illogical, and biased?

Foundation

Like so many Americans today, I am not happy with either Republicans or Democrats.  More than that, I am unhappy with political discourse, and the way complicated issues get oversimplified.  I decided to simplify and clarify some of my thinking, so I can see if it forms a coherent whole.

1.  Principles are guidelines, not rules set in stone.  As soon as you "this is the way it is, no exceptions, no discussion" you lose your flexibility and ability to think critically.

2. We are all special snowflakes.  Yes, I know.  You've probably heard this with a note of irony and sarcasm.  If everyone is special, then in the end nobody is special.  We can't possibly all be special.  We can't all have some field or area where we are amazing.  Yet think about what it would mean if you were serious about this one.  What if every. single. person. had this amazing potential to do something awesome? 

Then how sad is it, that so few people get the ability to be amazing?  If we all have that ability, how come only 10% (to randomly pick a number that viscerally feels right) get the chance to live up to their full potential?  How much potential is absolutely wasted in the world as it exists today?

Tied in with this is a view of people - as individuals, and as members of society.  We're supposed to be an individualistic culture, so we emphasize individuals choices.  This person chose poorly, and now they're dealing with the consequences.  That person chose well, and now they're successful.  Yet other cultures emphasize the community, or the family.  The group.  This can be bad, in some ways.  What you do reflects on your entire family (or clan, or tribe) and if you behave poorly your family will suffer.  Collective punishment. 

Yet there is an element of truth to this.  Today we see the American Dream withering and dying.  It is harder and harder for someone who doesn't come from a wealthy family to succeed.  Yet there are always individuals who prove the exception to the rule, and who do manage to make it.  Is it because of individual choice?  That they chose well, whereas everyone else around them chose poorly?  Or was there something else going on?

My personal view is that there is an element of truth to both of these.  We have free will.  We can make choices, for good or bad, that will affect our lives.  And yet we are also part of a socio-economic environment that affects what choices are available to us.  (This, btw, is part of why I'm involved with Big Brothers, Big Sisters.  Mentorship matters.  Mentorship makes a difference.  And it is possible to make that difference, because we are not locked into the circumstances we were born into.)

3. Creating the right environment for success is complicated.  People have to try, and fail.  And try again.  People have to be challenged, but not too much.  Plus, people feel rewarded and fulfilled when they are serving something greater than themselves. (Yes, I phrased that as 'success', but success is tied in with happiness and fulfillment.  Most people are not going to succeed where they aren't happy, and the ones who do are not exactly living the kind of life we want.) That's part of why this whole thing about 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' only talks about the pursuit of happiness.  You can chase after it all you want, but often what you think will make you happy doesn't.

Too much success, too easily, can actually make it harder for people to be fulfilled.  Too much of a struggle, and too many people become overwhelmed.

Note: Yes, I know.  These last two are not really political viewpoints, per se.  Yet they are some of the basic tests I use for any suggested policy.  Does it create an environment where individuals can develop to their full potential?  Take the liberal and conservative viewpoints on welfare.  Some conservatives see welfare as handouts that make people dependent on the government, and stifles their willingness and ability to do for themselves.  Some liberals focus on the vast majority of people who use welfare as intended.  Many use welfare as a way to help get through a difficult time, especially while job hunting or looking for something more permanent.  Liberals may also focus on the children, and say 'we have to give these children the resources they need to do better in life'...because children who are given a good education, good nutrition, and good mentorship have the chance to do better.

Which matters more?  The potential for welfare abuse?  Or the ability to help Americans get through a rough time?  Is it a matter of degree?  That X many of people who abuse the program are enough to justify ending it?  Or is it about something else entirely?  About whether government should provide support to citizens going through a rough time?  (i.e. does society benefit by providing a safety net like welfare?)
 

Work, Updates, Somewhat Down

I haven't posted much of late.   can make the usual excuses (work, busy, etc) but that's only part of the truth.

A more complete truth is this: I'm somewhat at a loss.  I know that I'm not quite where I want to be in life, yet I'm not entirely sure how to get to where I DO want to be.

Work?  Well...let's see.  I think I've been outmanoeuvred by a co-worker.  Not that I was trying to manoeuvre that much in the first place (just trying to do a good job, you know?) 

I could sort of see it coming.  We had a fairly important discussion some months back about where to put some additional people, and I lost.  Got overruled.  It really annoyed me when it happened, because it felt like I was overruled not because my arguments were weak, but because my boss supported someone else more.  Someone, btw, who wasn't as involved in my area of the facility and therefore did not really know what he was talking about.  (Since he was focusing on the short-term problems we had more recently, he didn't sound exactly ignorant, to be fair.)

And here's the thing - I didn't want to fight it.  Sure, I could see the way the wind was blowing...but did I really want to be that involved in how a distribution center runs?

The sad truth is - no.  No, I don't.  My interest, my passion, has always been with public policy.  That's why I got the degree I did.  I can feel my interest waning.  Motivation is hard to maintain.

So now I'm left in a quandary.  How do I get to where I want to be?  Do I give up the start I made here, with this company?  Do I try  moving to a new location, even though I really like the house I bought?

Sure, I will transition to another department here shortly.  Something new should keep me distracted for a little bit longer.

There are times I feel frustrated.  Like I don't have the right skillset to get where I want to be.   Not because I'm not smart enough, or capable enough.  But because I just don't feel comfortable promoting myself, or networking. 


More to the point - I think the co-worker who 'won' the argument is going to get my bosses job, and I really don't want to work for him.  Not because he's a bad guy.  I'm sure he'll do fine.  It's more that...

That the way he rose to prominence doesn't really seem right.  I try not to point fingers, but it feels like he got more buddy-buddy with my boss.  I, on the other hand, tend to get annoyed/frustrated with bosses that I don't feel know what they're doing, and tend to avoid them and go all minimalist with behavior.

Not the most helpful response, I know.  It's not even that I'm afraid to argue.  I can and do speak up.  Sometimes.

It's more like...the basic assumptions are so different that I can't even begin to start.  Like the assumption that most of our employees are 'the enemy'.  Not stated out loud, not explicit, of course.  But we don't trust them to do their jobs without having a method of tracking productivity.  And we assume they will try to get away with whatever they can.  (An element of truth to that, yes.  A chicken/egg thing?  Maybe.  Yet you don't build trust, don't change that dynamic, by allowing that attitude to dictate your decisions.)

Anyways.  I feel like my basic assumptions/values don't mesh.  Some days I despair of ever finding a workplace where they do.  I fantasize about having my own organization, running things my way.

Testing out how much of what I believe is unrealistic, and pie-in-the-sky.  And how much of it really does lead to a better place. 

But then the real world comes crashing down on me.  How would I go about doing that?  Getting funding for such a project is right up there in the skillsets I don't feel comfortable with (i.e. networking, at least when it means pretending to like people you really don't.)

Ferguson, Racial America, Hopefully-Never-To-Happen Fears

Note: For some reason this didn't get posted when I thought it would.  I just now realized it has been in draft stage for about week.  I debated posting it now.  I had moved on and wasn't really thinking about it since.  Still, seems a shame to waste all that writing.


I scared myself a bit this morning.  I saw an article on Facebook discussing the news analysis on Ferguson.  Since it touched on my previous concerns (i.e. reporting that can't even agree on basic facts, like whether the cop was injured or not).

I shared it to my friends, and added a few comments on why I found this disturbing.  Aside from the racial issues, the grief of Michael Brown's family, and all the other Ferguson issues.

In addition to the incident itself, the way the news is being handled disturbs me because we're not able to agree on basic facts.

In Iraq, I remember reading a a couple of conflicting accounts of what happened on a street in Baghdad.  I remember thinking to myself "this is a sign of how bad it is.  These reports are clearly contradictory.  Either a fight happened, or it didn't."

When you can't agree on basic facts, there is no middle ground, and someone is lying.

When you can't even agree on the basic facts of the event, all you have is spin and the power to create whatever reality you want.

I thought to myself, 'at least our news has to have SOME basis in reality!!!  Reporters are supposed to investigate, and find credible sources, and check their facts.  We can argue about interpreting the events, argue about how we frame things, but the basic checkable facts should be there.'

And here, today, in 2014, we see a major news agency presenting the facts they want to believe, without truly fact-checking any of it.

That's where I left off.  The scary part was when I remembered a paper I wrote as an undergrad over a decade ago...I don't remember the entire point, but I was looking at our involvement in 'military operations other than war'.  Yugoslavia.  Bosnia.  Somalia.  Haiti.

One quote has always stuck with me - "You Americans would become nationalists and racists too if your media were totally in the hands of the Ku Klux Klan." (I'm not entirely sure if it was from this article, but a lot of what is in here captures what I remembered reading.)  Actually, this whole paragraph is worth quoting in it's entirety:

The breakup of Yugoslavia is a classic example of nationalism from the top down -- a manipulated nationalism in a region where peace has historically prevailed more than war and in which a quarter of the population were in mixed marriages. The manipulators condoned and even provoked local ethnic violence in order to engender animosities that could then be magnified by the press, leading to further violence. Milošević l gave prime television time to fanatic nationalists like Vojislav Šešelj, who once said that the way to deal with the Kosovo Albanians was to kill them all. Tudjman also used his control of the media to sow hate. Nationalist "intellectuals," wrapped in the mantle of august academies of sciences, expounded their pseudo-history of the victimization of Serbs (or Croats) through the ages. One of them seriously asserted to me that Serbs had committed no crimes or moral transgressions at any point in their long history. Worst of all, the media, under the thumb of most republican regimes, spewed an endless daily torrent of violence and enmity. As a reporter for Vreme, one of the few independent magazines left in the former Yugoslavia, said, "You Americans would become nationalists and racists too if your media were totally in the hands of the Ku Klux Klan."

Are we there yet?  No.  Will we ever get there?  I sure hope not.  Five years ago I would have said no.  Al Qaeda supposedly was trying to ignite a race war in the US and assumes that we will eventually have one, and I thought them laughably ignorant about how our nation works.

But when I see the reporting on Ferguson, the increasingly divided news, the way people segregate what they see and hear and only read what they already agree with, it kind of scares me.

What Can We Do?

Ferguson, in a way, brings home to me how emasculated we are as a nation. 

I grew up in the post-boomer era, where it seemed as though our parents had been there and done that.  They did the large protests, they had movements, there were so many organizations you could be involved with that it has since degenerated into a mass of confusion. 

We appeared to reach the limits of mass protests, and even though things aren't perfect it doesn't seem worth it to take a day off work and go to a rally somewhere.  Heck, most people can't afford to do that anyway - that sort of thing is for young and idealistic college students, the sorts of people who have that kind of time.

There are big issues going on in the world today.  In the United States, as well.  Rising inequality, the doors of opportunity slamming in some people's faces.  Technology.  Terrorism.  Degrading infrastructure.  The growth of bureaucracy and the loss of control/influence within the faceless forces of our day. Polarization. Centrifugal and centripetal forces tugging us this way and that.  Multi-culturalism.  Loss of identity.  The war on drugs.  The growth of the prison industry.  Racism, still.  People feeling threatened and scared and afraid.

But what can we do about it?  What rallying force is there?

Most of the movements that try to capitalize on this fall somewhat - flat.  They may start out promising, but eventually lose their way.  Occupy Wall Street.  The Tea Party.  Our news is a joke.  Focusing more on stupid things, irrelevant things.  Things that don't really matter and don't really address these issues.

It's hard to get people fired up enough to do more than click 'Like' on Facebook, or sign some sort of online petition. 

We live in a democracy.  We are able to vote for our leaders.  Yet we have horrible participation rates, and even when we do vote it seems like the game is rigged against us. 

I don't like the cynicism I see today.  Yet it's hard not to feel it myself.  Especially when there is so much good advice out there.  Articles like this, if you want to discuss national security and foreign involvement.

So why does it seem like all the good ideas fail to gain traction?  Why do we consistently seem forced to choose between horrible ideas?

I know, intellectually, some of the reasons why.  I was a political science student.  Got a master's degree in Public Affairs.  I can point to the systemic factors.  The reasons it's so hard for a third party to gain credibility.  The reasons why parties are forced to cater to their (more extreme) base.  The nature of human fallacy, and the insidious way that self-interest can appear justified and in keeping with national interest.  The way people choose information that is in keeping with their worldview, and reject that which isn't.

I know all this.  And I still feel - disappointed.  Sad.  Upset. 

It's a bit like watching the steps that will lead to a train wreck, and not being able to stop it.  I don't know when the train wreck will come.  Heck, given the natural lifespan of nations it's probably inevitable.  Eventually. (Though I'd like to see us make the sorts of choices that will postpone it a few centuries.)

So what can we do to make a difference?  Really?

Ferguson

Something about Ferguson is long overdue, and yet I find myself wondering what to say.  My facebook feed has died down of late, but most of the posts seemed to fit with the world view of whoever posted it.  That, as one example, the officer who shot Michael Brown was severely injured, or wasn't. 

I didn't immediately write anything, because after Iraq I distrust the news.  The first, second, and even third story is probably not accurate.  And I dislike claiming to know what is going on when I don't really know any better than anyone else that wasn't there.

But I don't like how divisive the responses are.  In particular, I know the statistics.  I know how many black men wind up incarcerated.  How the police, in some neighborhoods, act more like an occupying army then the servants of society that we normally see them as.  I know the problems with "driving while black", and that the world I live in and the experiences I have with the police are not the same sorts of experiences that black people do.

So I've been quiet, for a while, and notice a few things that disturb me.  First - that after being in the news cycle for as long as this has, we still seem to be short of real facts.  The dispute over whether the officer was injured or not being the primary example.  Even the autopsy report is used to bolster whatever side the reader wants.  (Exit wounds, or the lack thereof, were mentioned in at least one post...but since I'm not a forensic expert I don't claim to know what the autopsy means.  For all I know, the bullet was lodged in his bone and that's why there's no exit wound.  Apparently, it may take a while for a credible analysis to be done.) 

It also seems strange that the news can dig up that Michael Brown robbed a store, but can't say whether or not the officer who shot him was seriously injured?!? 

This is a high profile, highly emotional situation and the official response is either pathetically unconcerned with clearing up matters, or is more concerned with trying to cover their butts and justify what happened.  Either way, it's not good.  No- I'm not saying they should rush to conclusions.  But there are definitely facts that we are not being given, like how severely injured the officer was.

And so I conclude by saying - I want justice.  I want an honest, fair and impartial investigation.  I don't want black people to feel like white people are more concerned with the ALS ice bucket challenge than with their very real anger and fear at how little society seems to care about their lives.

And I wonder, as with other topics, what we can do to actually make a difference.  For me, rioting and looting isn't the answer.  I know people who point at the riots and shake their heads in disgust, and almost appear to use that to justify the way things are.  Perhaps not that specific shooting, but to justify the poor community relationship with the police.  Okay, Ferguson may be a dangerous area with a lot of crime and a large number of gangs. That may or may not be true, but that doesn't mean that the police are automatically right.  (Or wrong, for that matter). 

What matters, in this particular case, is whether or not the police officer responded in a reasonable manner to the situation as it developed, with the knowledge he had at the time of the incident.

What also matters is communicating that clearly, if only to head off rumours and conspiracy theories.  And...to admit that this situation got out of hand because there is a serious divide between the police force and the local community.  (If this were Iraq, and the police were the US Army, we'd be trying to find an influential shiekh and local leaders to take the lead in policing themselves.)

I can't really point fingers and judge Ferguson for rioting, but at the end of the day it's not something I'm going to go out and do myself.


I don't like what's going on, but I also don't really know what I can do about it either.

Horror, Zombies, and Decision Making

I just finished re-reading World War Z.  I had seen the movie, and when a friend (sockschan) realized that I hadn't read the book she insisted I should.  Said it was right up my alley.

She was right.

See, I'm not actually into zombies.  Or horror, for that matter.  But I do enjoy some of the movies/books/stories when friends recommend I see them.  World War Z is kind of a geopolitical zombie book, so it fit well with my interests.

While reading it again, I realized that the true horror in the story wasn't the zombies.  It was the poor decision-making that let the zombie threat practically destroy humanity.  The zombies, once  they were understood, were something people could fight.  And win.  But the resistance to acknowledging the threat allowed the 'virus' to spread too far, too fast.  Initial attempts to maintain control and fight the zombies conventionally failed.  (The book did an excellent job of pointing out why trying to attack zombies with bombs and kill zones of massed fire didn't work, not when you had to take out the brain of every zombie.  Not when any casualty could become a zombie, too.)

That is, in a nutshell, why I care about decision making.  Good decision making matters.  Poor decision making gets people killed.  Or, at a minimum, makes life more miserable and difficult than it has to be.

In a way, it also points out how little we trust the Powers That Be.  We don't trust them to make the best decisions, or even keep us informed enough that we can tell if they are or aren't making sound decisions.

Which is all well and good, but doesn't say much about how we can make things better.  Different.

Does it really require a major disaster to get people to consider alternatives?

How sad is that?

Science Fiction, Frontiers and Second Sons

I love reading science fiction, and much of the genre deals with 'frontier' issues.  That is, people moving out into uninhabited planets.  In science fiction, often for reasons people came to the US: Opportunity, religious freedom, etc.

I know I've heard, peripherally, some discussion of what it meant when we were a frontier society.  And how that has changed as we expanded to the limit, and the frontiers closed.  A frontier was a place where people could have opportunities unavailable back home.  In our own history, that's part of what the second sons of Europe did...the ones who were never going to inherit (what with the law of primogeniture and all that.  It's different in societies, like Afghanistan, where the sons are expected to split the inheritance entirely.  Causes problems all its own, as the land they inherit keeps getting smaller.)

Anyways.  I wonder, sometimes, if the class wars of today are related to that.  Talented people don't have as many opportunities, because they have to advance within an already established system.  One where they start out disadvantaged to begin with.

The American dream is tied to that notion - the idea that hard work and talent can get you somewhere, regardless of who you were back in the Old World.

I don't think the closing of the frontier, in and of itself, means that the dream is dead.  But...

Well, it's kind of like a discussion I had with someone in Afghanistan about water usage.  Water is pretty scarce over there, and some of the so-called 'squatters' were basically the disadvantaged (i.e. people with little access to the crucial water necessary for farming) finding creative ways to succeed.  Creative, and perhaps not quite legal, of course.  Anyways.  I was talking with a hydrologist, working with USAID, and he insisted that there really was enough water to go around.  It's just that the Afghans had to cooperate and work together to portion it out appropriately.  The people up river couldn't be planting crops that required a lot of water, since it didn't leave as much for those downstream.  Management was important - and practically impossible in a society with little reason to cooperate. 

They had a history of zero-sum games w/regards to water, and the ones who 'won' and had access had no reason to limit themselves for the sake of the losers who didn't.

To bring this back to America, and class warfare - the winners of our system see no reason to limit themselves for the sake of everyone else.  (And, with the set of beliefs allowing them to feel like they earned and deserve their status, they feel unfairly put upon when others argue they should.) 

Yet, at the end of the day, there are still a LOT of disadvantaged people who just don't have the opportunities that used to be available. 

It's hard to address the problem when the winners aren't even willing to admit that there IS a problem.

This.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/10/people_power_human_security_iraq

Background, Musings, Career, Etc.

When I was first starting out in the Army, a young lieutenant getting ready to take her first platoon, I was given a lot of advice.  I discovered that you have to sort it all out, and figure out what advice really applies to you.

I know it's cliche to say "the older I grow, the less I know"...but in many ways its true.  I feel like I can find all sorts of advice on what to do next, where to go, but I have to sort it out for myself to figure out what applies.

Since it's been years since I blogged, and who knows who is reading this, a bit of background information is in order.

I completed ROTC, earned a Bachelor's in Political Science, and joined the Army back in 2000.  I started out in Air Defense Artillery, with the Patriot Missile System down in Ft. Bliss, Texas.  I switched to Military Intelligence, and worked in Ft. Huachuca, Arizona.  I deployed to Iraq from about Oct 2004 to Nov 2005, then left the Army.  Went back to Iraq as a contractor from 2006 to May 2007.  Spent a couple of years earning my Master's in Public Affairs, while staying close to home when my mother was diagnosed with cancer.  She passed away my final semester of college, and when I graduated I took a job with the Human Terrain Team in Afghanistan.

When I made it home the last time, I decided it was time to find a stateside career.  About two years ago I took a job at a distribution center for a large multi-national company.  It's been - interesting.  Warehouse management was more intricate than I expected.  We are in the midst of changing our warehouse management system (hence all the long hours) and it's been keeping me busy.

However.

Now that we're figuring out the last few kinks to the new system, my current job seems a little...

Dull.

I think it's time to move on.  I'm beginning to get itchy feet, to feel like I've learned about as much as I can in my current role.  I've been managing about 40 employees (full time associates and contract labor from temp agencies) responsible for picking and packing our shipments on a daily basis.  The last few months, I've been involved with testing out and developing our new warehouse management system.  It's actually kind of interesting, to see what all goes into it.  How many things can go wrong, if it's not configured right.  But the project is winding down, we're beginning to get back to our daily routine, and it no longer feels like enough.

So what next?

I feel a bit at loose ends.  I'm doing well here, I can probably find another job within the same company.  A step up, maybe.  (Of course, then I would have to sell the house I just bought.  Or rent it out or something.  And I kind of like it here, so I'm not entirely happy at the thought of moving again.)

I could wait it out, until the Operations Manager and/or Plant Manager move on, and try to find a job here.  (Though who knows when that will happen, or whether I would get the job in the first place.)

I could apply for other jobs locally, though I rather like my company and don't really want to leave.

Or...

Or what?  I earned a degree in Public Affairs for a reason.  I care, deeply, about policy and the decisions we make.  It matters.  Serving in Iraq, especially, convinced me that having good policies matters.  When policies are bad, it's awful.

Sometimes I think I should make yet another career change, really focus on getting a job with some sort of think tank in DC.  Or try getting involved with a political party.

But...

I don't want to.  It doesn't quite feel right.  I mentioned the book Hope for the Flowers before, and it feels too much like I'm trying to climb the caterpillar pillar.  I don't want to pretend I agree with a political party just to work my way up within its ranks - and frankly, I couldn't support and participate with either party without such a pretence.

And as for think tanks - I would have to spend a heckuva lot of time networking, to get there.  Or do an internship, and I'm getting a bit too old and require a bit more stability than that.  (Besides, I don't think I want to go to a DC think tank.  That just perpetuates the DC bubble.  Why DON'T we have think tanks located in the heart of Americana?  I know, I know.  They all want to be near the source of power.  Decision making.  And they can network with all the other agencies drawn to the same thing. To get that, you need to be in places like DC.  Or New York.  But then you get so focused on that singular location that you miss out on everything else.)

Meh.  I find myself praying for a miracle.  Then resent feeling dependent on some sort of Deus Ex Machina.

(Why? - Any story that relies on one is sloppy.  Even though this is the real world, it still feels wrong to rely on one.  Besides, I like to believe I control my destiny, and magical thinking doesn't help.

On the other hand, I know the world is a strange and crazy place, where the most logical conclusion doesn't always happen.  All you have to do is read a few military histories to realize that sometimes world history depends on little coincidental things.)

Plutocrats, Meritocracy, Etc.

I read this article with interest, and it captures much of what I believe in.  It's just that, since I'm not one of those wealthy 1%, I feel like I'd come across too much as though what I'm trying to say is just sour grapes.

Still, if you look throughout history I think the signs of decline are rather consistent.  A group of elite gain control, and they use that power unwisely...to their own advantage.  They alienate the have nots, who eventually get angry enough to rise up and overthrow the elite.  Rinse, recycle, repeat.

Easy to look at the French aristocrats and see their role in the French Revolution.  Less easy to see it today, in ourselves.  (It doesn't help that a system on the verge of collapse can linger.  How long has North Korea stood?)

Signs of decline?  When talented people are stifled, and have little chance to succeed.  (Supposedly part of why Napoleon won so many battles.  The Revolution allowed talented commoners to advance, where before they were stuck following less talented aristocrats.)  When people start justifying the situation, claiming that they deserve (or are entitled) to being in those top roles.  (i.e. claims that the nobility is naturally better and more deserving.) 

What's funny is that we consider ourselves a meritocracy, at least the ones at the top do.  Probably don't consider any of this as applicable. 

Yet that's what all the stories about the squeezing of the middle class, the growing costs of college, the shifting of college aid to those already wealthy rather than to the smart but needy...all of that sums up to a change.  You can't really claim that the people on top are deserving, when so many people never even got the chance to compete.

For me, personally?  I've known too many extremely smart people who couldn't afford to go to college, too many regular people working extremely hard just to stay afloat, and too many  mediocre people who think they deserve to be in charge, to believe the cream always rises to the top.

Yet in a way, that isn't what bothers me the most.  It seems in any society, some group manages to come out ahead.  What bothers me is tied up with good decision-making, or the lack thereof.

First - my favourite, groupthink.  When too many people come from the same types of backgrounds, they think so much alike that they are more likely to make the same leaps in logic...and convince themselves that they've thought it all out.  We have far too many examples of 'the best and the brightest' coming up with poorly vetted plans and I think part of it is the similar training and backgrounds of all our elites. 

Second - it's too easy to convince themselves that they are somehow wiser, or better.  That they don't have to worry about the appearances of favouritism or bias, because of course they are too smart or wise to be influenced like that.  That nice, cozy, friendly relationship may not seem bad to the ones involved.  Heck, that's part of what everyone looks for in life...and can probably even seem good.

Just - not when it creates a good ol' boys network that marginalizes or neglects others.  Or makes it appear that who you know is more important than what you're capable of.
 

On National Strength, Morals, Etc.

I talked about realpolitik in my last post, and probably made it sound negative.  I wanted to go into more detail here, because I don't think that it has to be.

Realpolitik is tied up with the belief that good politics are what's best for the nation (whether that means ensuring a good source of oil, or building alliances against threats, or what-have-you).  The problem, I think, is that people can justify almost anything.


I have to admit, realism seems to reflect international politics more than any other model.  The notion that democracies don't fight seems silly, considering we did go to war with England in the 1800s.  The belief that globalism and the interconnectivity between nations will make war disappear has some merit.  It means there are more severe disadvantages for fighting.  But if the issue seemed important enough, I think nations would overlook that, as well.

But realism sometimes seems harsh and cold, and I think most people associate it with a cynical, pessimistic and negative view of human nature.  One I disagree with rather strongly.

If you look at who people admire and respect, it's generally NOT the ones seen as master manipulators.  Nor the game players.  (If you want to go the Christian route and consider the Bible - when Jesus tells his disciples that he will make them fishers of men, he was telling them that he would make them leaders.  How?  By teaching them to serve others, and to be good shepherds, not by giving them 48 Laws of Power.)

To bring this back to the title above - I think policies that make our nation stronger are ones that would expand our options, build off a strong base of support, and stay true to our national values rather than cynically giving lip service to them.

I sometimes think of a book I'd read, years ago, on the Ottoman Empire.  From what I remembered, the Ottoman Empire (before becoming "the sick man of Europe") was pretty smart about how it operated.  It offered better governance than its neighbors, so much so that Christians in the Balkans preferred Ottoman rule.  It's been a while since I read the book, and I know the details were not as simple or nice as that...but the principle seemed sound.  Besides, it resonates with the American concept of a "city on the hill" trying to lead by example.

We have a lot going for us.  We have enormous resources, a large and capable population, wide oceans to our east and west, and only two nations (Canada and Mexico) on our immediate borders.  We're too large to pretend we can't or don't have an influence on the rest of the world, we just have to figure out how to do so wisely.  Intervene, and people will criticize you for meddling.  Don't intervene, and people will criticize you for doing nothing when you could have made a difference.  For better or worse, we have an effect on the outcomes of current events.  The question is, what outcomes do we want to pursue?  And how capable are we of making those outcomes a reality?

We are weaker, in that we seem rather incapable of making things happen the way we profess we want them to.  Iraq has hardly lived up to our rhetoric.  Nor has Afghanistan.

In the last decade, it seems like we, as a nation, grow more and more constrained.  Even worse, the influence of business on our foreign policy (both somewhat isolated from the average American) means that we have done things in the past that make it harder to operate in the present.  If you read about our history in South American and Latin America, for example, you find that Hugo Chavez's ridiculous conspiracy claims were not as far fetched as they sounded.  Our past actions made it easier for someone like Hugo Chavez to oppose American interests.

(The CIA has a reputation that can be used against us, as much as for us.  Want to claim that what you are doing isn't really a bad thing?  Claim that 'the West' is stirring up trouble and supporting your opponents.

Iraq

I'd told myself I wasn't going to write about Iraq.

Honest.

I'd spent over three years thinking about the place, blogging, searching for answers...

And one of the reasons I stopped was that I was beginning to feel like an armchair quarterback.  I wasn't the one out there making the call.  And it started to feel silly to think my posts would make much of a difference.  (And if I'm wrong, and you want to read more from me, then please put a little something in the tip jar I've added.  This is not my full time job and it'd be nice to know my  hobby means something.)

Despite my original inclination, I decided to type up a blog post anyway.  There are a lot of good articles out there discussing the situation.  Some not so good ones as well.  I think you all can read them the same as I can.  What I would like to point out is that the people arguing for intervention seem to believe they are playing a game like risk.  Move one colored square here, take this spot, try to keep a Shiite crescent from developing or war between Saudis and Iranians, or what-have-you.

Very realpolitik.  Very strategic.

Only thing missing is this - people are not little colored squares that you can move around at will.

The Iraqis deserve to be more than just victims of some geopolitical upheaval.

And for Americans, the past decade has left practically NO appetite for further involvement. 

I haven't heard a single argument from the ones suggesting involvement that addresses the fact that some of the exact same thinking has left us weaker as a nation.

We have less credibility.  Less capacity to exert our influence.  Less support from our own people.

If we were to get involved, how do we know we won't just overreact, then give up and pull out and wind up even worse off than before?  Or underreact, do too little, and look even weaker?


Why won't we wind up in the same situation seven years later?

Metrics, Performance, CYA and more

I need to keep this short, because I've been working 12+ hour days and it's almost time for bed.

So here's something to think about.

Where I work, we normally have a way to assess our employees productivity with rates.  As someone in a leadership role once said - He loves it.  He hates it.

On the one hand, it's nice to have a metric that tells you who is performing well and who is struggling.  If you have to fire someone for performance, it's also nice to have something fairly straightforward to justify it.

But then you get people so concerned about their rates that they will fight over petty things.  Or people will be so concerned about rates that they will cut corners, and make work harder on everyone else.

While I could tie that in with my own issues/concerns about metrics, I wanted to take this a step further.

The reasons we like having that metric are similar to the reasons why technology gives us a false sense of omniscience, and similar again to why PhDs can find a job more easily.  (The metric makes us think we 'know' who is doing well, without necessarily digging deeper...leaving us open to people who know tricks for looking better than they are.  PhDs are easier to hire because nobody is ever going to say they are unqualified.  They HAVE A PhD!!!)  We can be inundated with information that makes us think we know, and yet we sometimes can miss major things because of that.  (This article coincidentally touches on that.)

But above and beyond the false sense of security metrics gives, is something I want to dig into when I have more time.  Which these days may mean in a month or so. :/

For most of us, we know we can't get the jobs unless we have the qualifications.  For exactly the reasons stated above.  We have to get the degree, or get the work experience, or what-have-you.

Which is why it is so frustrating, aggravating, mind-numbingly heart wrenching to hear stories like this.  Or this.

It implies that the rules are different for some of us.  Not because they are better, or more deserving.  But simply because they have connections.  What are we, a third world country?!?  Why would officials alter the records for someone, to make it appear they had a degree when they didn't?  If they were talented enough to get that job despite lacking a degree, then the people who hired them should have had the guts to say so.  And to help puncture this notion that only people with a degree are qualified.  And if they really, really want to insist on the degree then don't hire someone who doesn't meet that qualification.

But the issue isn't necessarily about this particular instance.  I don't claim to know whether the individual performed well or not.  It's about how the rules differ for some of us.  And all the things done to CYA when hiring or promoting (metrics, degrees, etc) can become a barrier for someone who can't afford college, or doesn't have the right experience...and yet are NOT barriers for others.

Individualism, Cowboys Saving the Day, and More.

I've heard it said that the East is more community oriented, and that the West is all about individualism.

I'm Western enough that, for the most part, I prefer individualism.  That Eastern orientation sounds a little bit - creepy.  Like the caricature of a 'perfect' woman, the one who is always giving for the sake of the family, and who is doing it by suppressing their own needs and desires.  It makes you wonder when the dam is going to burst, and when they're finally going to crack.  Plus that communal orientation sounds like individuals have a big incentive to stay quiet and support the consensus, even when the consensus is wrong.  That means groupthink would be a huuuuuuuuuuuuuge problem, since who is going to rock the boat?  After all, sometimes boats need rocked.

Of course, I also know that we all seem to need some sort of community.  Nothing gives a sense of well-being and fulfilment like being part of one.  So many people today seem nostalgic for that small town environment for exactly those reasons.

But I didn't actually want to get into all of that today.

I wanted to talk about some of the flaws, though I love it so, in our individualistic society.

We have these archetype stories.  Like the person who "pulls themselves up by their own bootstrap", a "self-made man" who managed to succeed all by him or herself.  We glorify them, put them on pedestals.  We look at the Bill Gates of the world, or the Steve Jobs.  We lay credit (or blame) on individuals like David Petraeus or George W Bush.  Or Barack Obama.

And, to be fair, sometimes one key individual can make all the difference.  But as Good to Great and other such works show, the individuals who make that difference are rarely the ones who are creating hype about themselves.  The ones that really do lead well, or create a lasting success, are often the ones who work hard to build other people up.  To make the whole stronger than the sum of its parts.

And that's part of what bothers me about 'selling myself' for my career.  It's not all about me.  It's about creating the work environment and giving my people the tools for them to succeed.  I don't want to be judged on my ability to create metrics.  Especially when metrics can be so misleading, and have little or nothing to do with how good of a work environment I create.  (Though there should be SOME correlation.  Good work environments should make more productive employees.  Just saying toxic work environments can appear to have good metrics as well.)

The military teaches this rather well, I think.  It takes a company, a battalion, a brigade...and an army.  If you had an army full of generals, you would probably lose the war.  You still need privates and sergeants, lieutenants and captains.

Yes, a general is important.  And can make a decisive difference.  But so can people at all sorts of levels within the organization. 

Hello World

Hello World.  It's been a long time since I've posted anything, and that was on another site.

For one reason or another, I decided I wanted a fresh and clean slate of blogging.  And then I got busy, and haven't blogged at all.

Why am I back?  Well, dear rhetorical reader, my head was going around in circles about an issue and I wanted to blog it out.  I finally got the push to try writing again.

I'll try to explain it like this.

Most of the people I know despise politics.  Office politics, national politics, it all smacks of dirty self-interest, one-upmanship, and ego gratification.  Games done to get ahead, pretending to like people you don't, stabbing people in the back, etc.  Oh, I know a lot of people who have strong political views, will vote, etc.  But running for office?  Not so much.

Plus, most of us just aren't the 'cool kids'.  We don't win popularity contests, and it seems somehow wrong to be one of the ones who do.  Shallow and superficial, sacrificing who  you are just to stay on top of the ladder.  I like to point people to the book Hope for the Flowers, because it captures that issue so well.  People are trying to climb to the top of a pillar, when true fulfilment and happiness comes from learning how to build a cocoon and become a butterfly.

Which is scary.  There are no rules.  No set path to follow.  In fact, if people are telling you that you 'ought' to follow a certain path to success, it will probably lead you off track.

There is a whole genre of success stories where people do that.  They ignore the naysayers, do their thing, and make it big.  Live the life.

And yet.  How many failures for every success story?  As one of my friends said, you get this idea that your life is like a movie.  You'll have a montage of scenes showing that you're training, or learning, or facing setbacks and challenges.  But the montage quickly fades and there you are, where you want to be.

Real life is scarier.  More uncertain.  Maybe you will wind up getting there.  Maybe you won't.  You can't believe that your life is a movie...

But if it isn't, then where are you?

Or, in this case, where am I? 

The details probably don't matter.  Suffice to say that I feel pressure to 'play the game', to create the numbers to show that I'm a good candidate for a better position.  (I'm getting itchy feet.  Been here two years, done good work, but beginning to feel like I should seek something more.)  I know I did well.  I know I'm a good candidate.  But I absolutely HATE having to sell myself by coming up with some amazing metric on how awesome I am.

Especially when the numbers my boss is recommending don't feel like they capture what I contributed the most to.  I think I helped with fuzzier things that On-Time-Ship statistics...though ultimately I'm sure I did help the bottom line.  I helped give our people the tools and training they needed for the massive system change we just went through.  I helped provide our operational experience to decisions they were making, so that the system was modified more in line with what we would need.

Granted, in a massive project like this I have also seen myself make mistakes.  Some of it because of the long hours, and the stress we're all under (we all are getting a little loopy when we've been working 12+ hr days and Saturdays.  Yes, I know...not too different from what I worked when I was deployed.  Which also led to this post, because this project made me realize I kind of missed that.  Not deploying.  Just - being involved with a big project where what I did could make a difference.)

So.  To get to that next step, do I have to do something I'm not all that comfortable about doing.  Sell myself as a good candidate?