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.)