High School Reunions, Mast Cell Tumors, Brexit and Elite Opinion

It's been a little while since I posted.  I had my high school reunion this weekend, and my dog required surgery for a mast cell tumor.  (He seems to be recovering well, though he's feeling well enough that I now have to worry that he'll overdo it and break open the wound before it's finished healing).  I have two dogs and two cats, but in case anyone was interested in what this particular dog looked like here's a picture from after we made it home (I took him with me in order to separate him from the other dog during the first two days.  Less chance of wrestling and/or injury).



As for current events, the big thing is (of course) the Brexit vote.  That and the ongoing 2016 presidential election, but I'm so disappointed in the choices that I'm tuning it out for now. 

In a funny way, the Brexit vote reminds me of some things I've been mulling over.  I suppose I should explain what I'm reading first.  I like to mix up the serious books, I sometimes get surprising insights when I do so.  I can only take so much of this at once, as the topics are kind of heavy and depressing...but well worth reading.  I already mentioned Dwelling Place, which I'm still working on.  I also picked up a book called Domination and the Arts of Resistance.  In addition, I decided to start on the Kissinger books.  I bought two, since I like to compare/contrast.  One is called Kissinger's Shadow, and the other is Henry Kissinger's World Order. 

So anyways.  I'll get back to my reading material after I provide some background info.  One of my life questions is why I can't "just drink the kool-aid", as a friend once advised me.  I probably come across as too critical, not willing to accept and support the powers that be.  I value accuracy over wishful thinking, and yet all of society seems to support the latter over the former.  Take the whole fox vs the hedgehog thing.  The sad truth is I'm more like the fox, and the hedgehogs are better at selling their idea.  Singular.  I like nuance.  I like messy, complicated issues.  I think there's something suspicious when a topic or issue is treated as though it's simple.  I also think that fox-like analysis, which is more accurate in the end, is important towards making better decisions.  That we strengthen our system by contributing our insights, even (or especially) if they don't match what everyone else is saying.  That when a group becomes too closed off from such insights they create an insulated bubble that is prone to groupthink and will eventually end in disaster.  So if I 'drink the kool-aid' I'm not actually offering anything worthwhile, but am instead just another contributor to something that may or may not end well.  (That said, you do have to pick and choose your battles...and there's a point where you have to stop being argumentative.)

I enjoy books that point out the mistakes we make when we try to oversimplify complex matters and buy into our own hype.  Seeing Like a State, for example, gives some great examples of how well-intentioned plans backfired or had unexpected consequences. 

So anyways.  There have been a number of articles discussing the current state of affairs.  How economists lost the confidence of the public.  How the middle class has been abandoned by business leaders.  Why nationalism has had a resurgance.

And then there's this.  A rather unapologetic "we know what's best for you, you idiots, and if you won't listen then we'll just go ahead and make the 'right' decisions for you".  I'm exaggerating, slightly.  There is a lot of ignorance out there, and I agree with some of his analysis.  And yet we wouldn't be in this situation if these so-called 'elite' leaders hadn't lost their credibility.  Their 'reality' is not accurate.  It may not seem quite as distorted as the nationalists who've been in the news lately, there are a lot of valid concerns.

To bring this back to my reading material - in Domination and the Arts of Resistance the author claims that a dominant group shapes the public 'transcript'.  That subordinate groups will publicly support that transcript, even though they may privately disagree.  And that dominant groups, as well, may say different things in private.  It's interesting on a number of different levels, especially since I have experience on both sides of these.  I know why officers, for example, would want some private space where you don't have to put on the leadership show.  I know how a subordinate might 'salute the uniform' when you really can't respect the person inside the uniform.  Every so often I think we see an article that pulls back that curtain and provides a glimpse of the private transcript.  Romney's 47%, for example.  Obama's "guns and religion".  And, in this case, the "we're sane and you're mindlessly angry".  I wouldn't rag on this so hard if there was more of an acknowledgement that the issue is more than just globalization.  It's also the 'expert' opinion that has allowed globalization to have such a detrimental effect on the average citizen.

2016 Presidential Election

I've had a couple posts circulating around in my head, but finding the time to solidify it and type it out has been hard.  I can't let myself get sucked into my writing headspace too much...if I do that, then I start thinking about it too much at work.  And then I'm not doing what I actually am paid to do.  So I try to figure out what I want to type in the evenings. When I'm not unwinding from work, or reading something new, or taking my Little to go swimming, or whatever.  Point is, life gets in the way....which is only to be expected in a hobby like this. :)

The downside to this is that I occasionally come across some really, really good articles and I have to either do a quick link (that may not do the article justice), or shift some of my other posts aside to cover the new material (still got one I'd call 'Step 2' on Making America Great Again, focused more on foreign policy and strategy), or forget it entirely.

This article was one of them, and I want to discuss what it means to me.  I think I've made it clear I'm not a Hillary fan.  I want to go into that a little bit first, actually.  I was talking to an aunt of mine about the election a few months back, and she asked me when I first started disliking Hillary. I originally said it was when she chose to 'stand by her man' after the Lewinsky scandal, but that's not quite right.  (I never really understood why that was considered a good move.  Some politician does some bone-headed and idiotic thing and gets caught, and next thing you know they're trotting out his wife - who privately might feel or think anything, and probably hasn't had time to really get through their own anger and shock.  If it was a shock.  Anyways, they trot her out to give some line about how she forgives him and we all should forgive him too.  But hey, their marriage is not actually my business.  Any of them.  I just think most of the public speeches are lies meant to smooth the political waters, and I have more respect for wives like Jenny Sanford than for any of the ones that put on the standard show.)  In thinking about it, however, that wasn't quite right.

Or rather, I had picked the moment but not the real reason.  The reason had to do with how both Clintons reacted to the affair.  Deny, deny, deny.  Deny until you absolutely can't deny any more, and then when you have to, admit to some sort of failing...but not anything like what your opponents are accusing you of.  This is, apparently, good politics.  I think it's absolutely atrocious leadership.  I suppose that comes from the military, or my own upbringing.  Where you respect people for owning their mistakes, taking responsibility, and working to fix things.  In many ways, it isn't even the scandal itself (which is sometimes extremely stupid).  It's the way they respond to it.

I've come across a couple of articles that, if not exactly reconciling me to it, at least make me understand better why they'd make a choice that reflects so poorly on their characters.  I could write an entire post about why character matters in a president, and I might do that some other time.  At this point I think a quote from The American President is appropriate -

"For the last couple of months, Senator Rumson has suggested that being president of this country was, to a certain extent, about character, and although I have not been willing to engage in his attacks on me, I've been here three years and three days, and I can tell you without hesitation: Being President of this country is entirely about character" (emphasis mine)

I have a friend who follows politics, and one of the things that bothers me in our discussions is how little she cares about character.  To her, all politicians are corrupt.  All politicians are liars.  So it doesn't matter what scandal you catch them doing, since they all are doing it anyway.  (Some just got caught, that's all).  And so she focuses only on the issues.  To me, you can't separate them out like that.  Character is what drives your reactions to the things that aren't pre-planned and vetted out.  Character is what makes you decide what to fight for, and when to follow the crowd.  (Though this, too, can be open to debate.  Do we elect politicians to do what we voted them in for?  Or because we expect them to use their judgment and make wise decisions?  If the former, than following the political winds makes sense.)

So anyways.  This article discussing the racial divide revealed by the Bernie/Hillary primary seemed important and enlightening for entirely different reasons.  I remember when the OJ trial occurred, and how most every (white) person considered it a travesty of justice.  We're almost certain he was the murderer, though of course you can't convict someone based on public opinion.  Yet it seemed like he did it, and he got away with it.  And murder!  One of the most horrific crimes out there!  And yet to African Americans, this was important for an entirely different reason.  It showed that a rich black man could get the same justice as a rich white man...what mattered was having the money to afford that slick lawyer.

And as I've been reading about modern slavery, I decided to pick up a book that my friend (mentioned above) gave me when she was clearing off her bookshelf.  It's called Dwelling Place, and it's about life on a plantation in the slave-owning south.  And the thing of it is - when decisions were so very arbitrary, and justice a pipe dream, can you blame the southern slaves for not caring so much about the points I just made?  And when you have a culture that knows justice is a joke, that life isn't fair, and that the people who claim to have 'character' are the same ones that enslaved your ancestors, can you really blame them for deciding to support someone who stands for the issues they care about?  Regardless of their character?

I still don't like Hillary, I still think she's an awful choice, and I'm pretty disappointed at how much the Democratic Party (and the media) appears to have pushed her through as a candidate.  If the Republicans could have come up with a decent candidate she'd have been in real trouble.  But I get, to a certain extent, why she has some of the support she has.

Too Much Truth

Why Young Americans Are Giving Up on Capitalism https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/16/why-young-americans-are-giving-up-on-capitalism/

Orlando

I resisted writing about Orlando here, because I try to reserve this space for things I don't think you can find elsewhere.  That is, I don't want to parrot what everyone else is saying...if you want to hear that, go read the news like I do.

My heart is with all those affected by this.  Of course.  Though I tend to show that more in Facebook than on my blog.

Yet I found myself writing, still, even though I have no answers to offer -

Because I am so sick of people being murdered like this.  It seems to be happening more and more often, more and more frequently.  And yet the political views are just more and more entrenched (and nothing will probably happen.)  Those who support gun control are all like "Now will you do something?!?" and those who oppose it are all like "Gun control isn't the answer" (though I haven't really heard an alternative, unless it's to make sure everyone is armed and end gun free zones.)  Add in a hefty does of "it's radical Islam that's the threat!" and "most of the mass shootings aren't done by Muslims!" and all you've got are people entrenching into their own point of views.

And, of course, showing sympathy for those affected.  (Though even there, there's a tinge of politicking...as you get so-called Christians who seem to rejoice in the murders.)

So what do I have to offer?  What new and novel idea can I come up with, that would prevent further tragedies like this from happening?

I got nothing.  Maybe, though I rather like the right to bear arms, maybe it's time to accept some changes.  As some articles have been pointing out, just because you carry a gun doesn't mean  you're prepared to take down a shooter.  Hell, I did weapons qualification in the Army every year...and I know exactly how rusty you can get when you only do it once a year.  I'm not sure I'd react correctly if I were involved in a situation like that today, so I think it's kind of silly to expect a mass of armed civilians to be capable of stopping something right away.  So does every bar, every movie theater, every school, every shopping mall and public park require an armed guard now?

I don't exactly like the idea of gun restrictions, but I'm so sick and tired of these mass murders.  So what are our options?  What else is out there?

What do the people who commit atrocities like this get out of doing it?  Why does anyone find it appealing in the first place?  Is it a failure of our society, our isolation at work?  The inability to see other people as human and deserving of life?  A desire to burn it all down and make everyone else suffer the way you think you are?

There's just something not right about this, and yet it keeps happening.  And the same old and tired arguments get trotted out each and every time, angrier and more frustrated each time.

Interlude - American Political Ideologies

I've been mulling over my next step, figured I'd do something on foreign policy next.  But again, that's a rather broad topic and I'm not ready to write that post yet.  I saw some headlines discussing what could possibly replace the Republican Party, and it reminded me of something I kind of wanted to do.  Namely, lay out the ideological threads behind some of the parties.  Their strengths and weaknesses, and how they support and conflict with each other.  This is by no means meant for historical accuracy.  It's more the impressions I've formed and my own understanding of the concepts.  And since I don't think I really have all that many followers (other than friends and family...thank you all) I figure I can digress and delay as long as I want.  Anything someone's dying to know my opinion on, they can just ask.

So, in no particular order:

Christian Conservatives - these want to bring Christian values into public life.  That can be a good thing, and I have a lot of respect for the truly devout.  Yet far too much of this group reminds me of all the New Testament complaints about the Pharisees in Matthew 6:5-6.  They're very showy about their faith, and very judgmental.  Jesus hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors (who were concerned pretty low-class) and notably warned people about casting stones.  Too many of this group come across as judgmental, holier-than-thou, and all about casting stones.

Fiscal Conservatives - the idea here is that we shouldn't be spending more than we can afford.  I think most everyone would agree.  The attempts to limit debt, however, might not actually make economic sense if you believe in Keynesian economics, that is.  Keynes argues that in a depression you can't expect the economy to improve through most of the other sources of economic growth, so the government should stimulate the economy with public spending.  (Which might work if we balanced that out with public saving during the boom years, but unfortunately we also tend to spend more when times are good.)  There are tons of economists out there who will explain the issues here to a far greater degree than I care to get into.  There are economists who disagree with Keynes, and I encourage you to read up on their various points if this interests you.  This whole topic is still open to debate, which makes it hard to say whether public spending during a downturn is a good idea or not.  I will say that the basic idea makes sense, but if you can't balance the budget by spending less than you have to talk about raising revenue.  In other words, raising taxes.  This group, in general, is where the staunch anti-tax group resides, so that's generally a non-starter.  The anti-tax push is another strategy that works well in the right circumstances and becomes ridiculous in the wrong ones.  Unfortunately, this position is so rigid that it's practically bypassed the brain and turned into a reflex.  No debate is made about what the appropriate tax level should be given the current situation, the answer is always "less".

Libertarians - this is home to the anti-authoritarian, small government, independent types.  When I said the conservative umbrella has conflicting ideologies I was mostly thinking of the Christian Conservatives and Libertarians, since libertarians generally don't care at all about what you're doing so long as it's not impacting them.  This appealed to my brother Kawphy a lot, so we've had a number of debates on the topic.  In an isolated world, this makes a lot of sense.  But in an interconnected world (where, for example, a business might dump waste into a river that eventually contaminates a city's drinking supply) it's not that easy.  Plus businesses have shown a tendency to abuse the situation if they're not forced to change (i.e. child labor laws, overtime laws, modern slavery, etc.)  The other downside to this is that such policies generally help the ones already privileged.  Another article I have completely failed to find again discussed specific policies and how they hurt the disadvantaged (i.e. poor, minority, etc.)  Instead, I'll just give a link to a Rand report.  I read the key findings but have not read the entire report, but it sounds like good and relevant info.

Classic Liberalism - to me, this is where I picture the Jewish lawyer who represented someone from the KKK.  These are the people who believe in freedom of speech so strongly that they will ensure the rights of someone who is saying things they violently oppose.  Classic liberalism is about more than free speech, of course, but there's something appealing about such strong convictions.  It seems to raise us up to be better people, and to see the worth inherent in all of us.  I have a hard time finding a bad side here, actually, which probably says something about my own biases. Unfortunately, it's called 'classic' liberalism because things have since changed.

Neo-liberalism is apparently a thing, but as this article shows it's not really in common usage.  I'm not too familiar with the term. 

Social Justice Warriors - the article on neo-liberalism mentioned that they are trying to get away from the excesses of liberalism.  In my mind that's associated with two things - social justice warriors (to steal a term) and labor.  With regards to social justice warriors, they are aware of the long history of racism and prejudice in our country and realize that this history makes it hard for people to truly rise through their own efforts.  These are the people familiar with the way banks used to deny loans to entire neighborhoods, not because their credit was poor but because the entire neighborhood was black.  They know that there is a poverty cycle, that someone born into poverty has a very difficult time escaping it.  They are very aware of racism, sexism, and prejudice.  They know that every time a black person hears negative things about their race that it makes it that much harder to shrug it off and disbelieve it.  And they want to do something about it.  The backlash we see with Trump supporters is partly because of the belief that this group exerts so much pressure for conformity that people no longer have the freedom to speak their minds.  That this group will use the government to enforce those norms, creating a stronger, more powerful, and more centralized government.  I personally admire the ideals and get the history, but I don't like the excesses either.

Labor - I think most everyone's familiar with this one, so I won't go into too much detail.  If you enjoy having a 40 hour work-week, it's due to this group.  I don't like the historical ties to the mob, or the corruption.  The labor movement can go to excess, and hiring incompetent or poor employees can be tough when they're in a union, but in a world where we've seen so much wage stagnation I feel like there's bigger problems right now.    I know opposition groups have made a big deal about public sector unions, like the teacher's unions.  That's in some ways tied to fiscal conservativism, small government, etc.  Globalization weakens this group considerably.  

Progressives - someone resurrected an old idea, here.  I originally heard about progressives as the group that pushed to reduce corruption and end the influence of party bosses (selecting the candidate in those smoke-filled cigar rooms).  What I remember was that their plans didn't actually succeed in and of themselves, the parties found ways of maintaining control, but the popularity of the movement seemed to reduce some of the problems.  Tammany Hall is one of the big examples, though wikipedia says they lost influence after going up against FDR and don't credit the progressive movement.  Anyways, a quick look online describes progressives as more like my social justice warriors.  The ones I've met do share some of the values, but are more focused on corruption as well. 

I think I'll leave the definitions separate in my own personal head, with the understanding that people will mix and muddle things in all sorts of ways.  Most people probably have a mixture of these, for example.  Or will call themselves one thing, but their self-definition is closer to one of my other categories.  I also did not go into foreign policy definitions (i.e. hawks or doves).  This has gone on long enough and, again, I think most everyone is familiar with them.  It is somewhat amusing, however, that the hawks - who generally favor military involvement and military spending - are stereotypically on the right where they oppose big government.  How can you claim the government can't run anything, then turn around and support the military which is run by the government?

Election 2016

As the news about Hillary clinching the nomination circulates, all I can say is that I'm disappointed.  In the Democratic party, in the media, and in the American public.

I haven't really said much of late because I could see it coming.  Bernie just wasn't winning enough to get there.

I actually was paying attention to Bill Kristol's attempt to find an independent, but anyone paying attention knows how that turned out.

I do admire the Republicans speaking out against Trump, and I'm kind of sickened by all the ones jumping on his bandwagon.  

Trump vs Hillary.  Ugh.

First Step

I said I would talk about a strategy, but the first question is "strategy to do what?".  After all, I could be talking about our strategy for dealing with the South China Sea (and btw, if you want nightmares...just think what would happen if one of those flybys turned into a shooting incident after we elect the next president.)  Or I could talk about our strategy for fighting slavery.  Or our strategy for improving schools.

But in some ways those don't seem appropriate right now.  So to steal a campaign slogan, I want to talk about a strategy to Make America Great Again. 

Immigration is a hot topic, right?  I've talked about how I don't think a wall is an appropriate answer, mostly because you'd have to staff the wall well enough to respond to any attempts to tunnel under or fly over the wall.  Plus you just push illegal immigration to other channels.

But if a wall won't work, what will?

Let's start talking about supply and demand.  Illegal immigration is a problem for two reasons.  One - people are coming from places where the economy sucks.  Two - smuggling people over the border is a business closely tied to the drug trade.  The coyotes and so forth often also smuggle illegal drugs, and may even use these immigrants as drug mules.

So we need to do the following: reform our drug policy, encourage development and stability in the economies to our south, and create a closer relationship with Mexico.

I started with our drug policy, because the war on drugs has ramifications far greater than just filling up our prisons, putting money in the pockets of criminals, and costing us money in terms of law enforcement and prisons.  The war on drugs has, frankly, failed.  I have heard a cop say that they won't even bother arresting someone for marijuana, not unless the person is being arrested for something else and they want to add to the charges.  My town, btw, had a referendum on marijuana.  Not anything binding, no legislation changing policies.  Just something to see what support there was.  I stopped by there but couldn't vote in it because technically I live outside the city limits.  There was a tremendously long line and the local newscaster was there trying to find someone who opposed the measure.  Nobody, and I mean nobody, did.  When you've got a law that's not even being enforced by the people who are supposed to be enforcing it, you've got a bad law.

Aside from all our domestic issues, however, our policies also have a direct impact on Mexico (and other nations to our south).  We apply pressure to them if they even talk about changing their policies, in order to try to stop the flow of drugs.  Meanwhile, our attempts at interdiction raise the price of drugs...put more money in the hands of the criminals, and makes it easier for them to corrupt law enforcement and state officials in their home countries (and some of the money gets into the hands of terrorists and other enemies of the US, but that's another story).  While I don't think we can claim all the credit, or blame, for what goes on elsewhere our policies do have an impact.  And a pretty bad one, at that.

End the war on drugs.  But don't do it stupidly.  I'm not going to say exactly what the policies should be (i.e. legalize everything?  Decriminalize it?  Decriminalize some and legalize others?) but we clearly would have to focus more on rehabilitation.  That, and we'd have to decide how to handle criminals in prison for drug-related offenses.  We now have some examples of what may or may not happen.  We can look at Portugal, or if you insist on something domestic we can look at the states that have already gone down this path.  I am, btw, very annoyed that I can't find an awesome article about a man who helped end the criminal organizations that grew during Prohibition.  He basically ensured that alcohol wasn't taxed too highly at first, so that the industry could compete with those who were still illegally selling it.  Once he put them out of business then they raised the tax rate.  Fascinating article, wish I could find it.

With the tax money (and that would be at the state level, so it's really up to them) the money should be used to revitalize our infrastructure and schools.

I brought this up as a serious proposition, not because I want to get high and not because of any libertarian views, but because our drug wars also have an impact at the strategic level.

As for development - given how little we actually seem to know about developing other countries (ex. Haiti) this would require a great deal of discussion on what would actually work.  Some of the problems seem tied to our own patronizing attitudes and poor understanding (i.e. let's fly in, save the day by building a school, and pat ourselves on the back for doing a good job regardless of whether the school is still in use a year later).  Since I'm trying not to get into the nitty gritty details yet, I'll leave that for another time. 

As for creating a closer relationship with Mexico, that's partly for geo-strategic reasons as well.

Tools in the Kitbag.

Is it better to have a poor plan, well-executed?  Or a great plan, poorly executed? 

I generally think the first is better, because if it's well-executed than you will adjust the plan as needed.  On the fly.  And it will achieve your goals.  The best plan in the world will get you nowhere, however, if you can't actually put the plan into effect.

I started with that because I'm trying to minimize what's required before getting to the good stuff.  I could go on and on for ages on background info, but then I'll never actually get to writing about a particular strategy.  As I thought about why I didn't delve right in, what was so important I had to write about it before going further, I realized I wanted to make it clear that there's no Magic Strategy that will Fix All Ills.

Strategies are just tools in your kit bag. 

That is, they each have their special time and place.  Using the wrong strategy at the wrong time can be like using a hammer to put a screw in the wall.  Or worse, using a saw.  Using the right strategy, but executing badly, can be just as bad as using the wrong strategy.

Always stay in touch with events as they develop, and adjust your strategy as needed.  (With a keen understanding of when and how to do that.  The 'Good Idea Fairy' is a problem because if you get that good idea too late, trying to act on it can screw everything up even worse.  Picture half your people failing to get the message before it's time to act, and still acting on the old plan.)

So with all caveats in place, an emphasis on sound implementation over all else, and the understanding I'm only lightly touching on some pretty deep topics, I'll finally get on with it.

Why I Don't Trust Elites

At work we sometimes discuss the PDCA process.  That is: Plan, Do, Check, Act.  You have to have a plan, but that plan will probably change as you go along.  You can't get too married to your plan, or you'll insist on executing it even when it won't achieve your goals.  You also can't just throw your hands up, and decide not to make a plan at all.

I think this process has gotten broken down somewhere along the way.  It's actually kind of crazy, when you think about it.  Certain things (like education) have widespread support.  How we achieve a quality education is very much open for debate, and you can discuss common core or school vouchers until the cows come home.  And yet we all agree our children should have a quality education.

So why, after decades of alleged interest in achieving this, do we seem unable to make it happen?  Why does it feel like education has gotten even worse?!?  If Americans are actually agreed that every American child deserves a quality education, then shouldn't we know by now what's working and what isn't?  A quick search shows that there are people out there trying to make exactly this sort of analysis.

I think many are so caught up in proving a particular ideology that they stop checking in with reality.  I'm trying to decide between going into that in more detail vs. moving on to strategy, and I figured I'd just link to some thought-provoking articles.  Not saying I agree with these 100%, but they can make us more aware of our own biases.

- First is an article discussing some American strategic mistakes
- Second is an article discussing how people react when they read something that goes against their beliefs
- Third goes a little further into the backfire effect
- Fourth is a substitute article, as I can't find the original I wanted here.  It's discussing what 'business friendly' public policies are.  The one I recall had a whole list of things we could do that were not tied to the corporate tax rate, but this one at least discusses the importance of good infrastructure to supporting businesses. 

So anyways.  In this partisan day and age, where battle lines are drawn and people tune out anything that doesn't agree with their pre-conceived notions, I find most politicians and mainstream media are playing to those ideologies and framing issues to fit in with those ideologies rather than truly focusing on solutions. 

In closing, I want to say "if it's a crazy idea, but it works...then it isn't crazy."

Follow-Up to Previous Post

I felt like I should follow up on my previous post, but I couldn't think of a good way to start.  I didn't want to double down on attacking the decision makers (i.e. you are incompetent, and here's why).  Nor did I want to be an apologist (i.e. it's okay, you did the best anybody could have done in your position).  I also didn't want to turn this so meta that it was useless (i.e. what is it about human nature that makes us repeat the same mistakes, over and over again?)

I found myself thinking about something I learned regarding how to manage healthcare organizations.  Healthcare involves life and death type situations.  And yet the people who manage that care are human, and fallible, and can make disastrous mistakes.  Like giving a patient the wrong medicine, or cutting off the wrong limb in surgery.  A good organization realizes that creating a zero-tolerance environment is actually counter-productive.  People try harder to hide it when they screw up, and you can't actually fix the root causes. 

You can't go pointing fingers, or punishing people too badly.  Not if you're serious about creating the best healthcare system.  You need to know if color coding pills (as one example) will help prevent future mistakes.

So that's what I wanted to do.  I don't want to point fingers, not really.  Sometimes I let my anger get the better of me, of course, and I think it comes out in my writing.  But I don't actually want to go back and figure out who carries how much blame for the current situation in the middle east (or other things).  At the same time, I think it's pretty obvious that our policies have not had the results we had hoped for.

So that's what I want to explore.  Why didn't we get where we wanted to be?  What can we do better? 

The first step, of course, is admitting that we didn't get the results we wanted.  Tied in with that is 'but we could have, if we had handled things differently'.

As usual, I'll continue this later.  Right now I need to go mow the lawn before it gets too much hotter.

Again the Question - So What Do We Do?

In a previous post I mentioned 'evil'.  I admit, it was partly for dramatic effect.  As I continue to read about modern slavery I came across some discussions on how the US categories various states.  Or rather, how legislation requires penalties for any country that remains a tier 3, so to avoid giving those penalties a nation might be raised to a higher tier level even though it's not truly warranted.

We say we want something, say we will act a certain way, but when push comes to shove we flinch.  We don't really mean it.  We want to apply pressure, but not the level of pressure actually agreed on by our own law.

Sort of the same thing happened with genocide.  After World War II many nations said "Never again", and the UN made the Genocide Convention to ensure it didn't happen.  So when genocide happens, we just change the name and call it ethnic cleansing.  Then we can wring our hands and talk about how awful it is, without actually having to do something about it.

Before I go too far in this vein, I want to point out that recent history emphasizes how hard it is to effectively act.  Part of the beliefs of the neo-conservatives was that they blended military force with Wilsonian ideals.  Their ineffectiveness and incompetence has left a bad taste in the mouths of many Americans.

So what are we to do?  Again, we face a dilemma.  Cognitive dissonance.  And we choose not to face it, deciding to let certain things fade into a bad memory.

In our willingness to look away, don't we still bear some responsibility for what happens?

That's part of what happened with the Taliban.  I don't believe the CIA directly created the Taliban, no.  But our willingness to look away, our desire to stay uninvolved, means we channeled resources to Pakistanis who chose to support the kernel of what would become the Taliban.  We could have supported Ahmad Shah Massoud, for example, but our allies preferred to funnel money to other anti-Soviet organizations.  Ones with a more fundamental bent. 

The problem with being alive, with existing, is that what we choose not to do has just as much of an impact as what we do.  Even when we are not aware of what we are choosing.  Ignorance is...childish.  Not appropriate for a nation of our stature.  It means we make choices that often hamper our own stated goals, implying we either don't really know what we want or don't really mean what we say.  Or both.

So anyways. When bad things are going on in the world today, I think we should do something about them.  But how is pretty darn important, and I (like so many others) am skeptical of the elite who claim to know what they're doing.

Slavery Topics

I've decided to start sharing some articles related to slavery as I come across them.  Today's article is this one, about a Yazidi businessman who has been rescuing Yazidi slaves in the middle east.

Facing Evil

A couple of decades ago I was lucky enough to visit Europe, which was pretty awesome at the time.  Amongst all the usual happy touristy things, however, I made a point of visiting a former concentration camp in Germany.  I think it was actually Oranienburg, just north of Berlin.  You might ask why I would go to something so - depressing.  I mean, I'm in Europe.  I visited London.  Paris. Barcelona. Berlin.  Got to see the Eiffel Tower.  And here I am going to a place that will only make you feel awful about humanity.

I went because I feel it's important to acknowledge these thing.  To face them.  To admit that they exist, they can exist here.  Now.  And that evil doesn't often come with neon signs and devil horns.  There's a phrase out there, made somewhat famous, about the banality of evil.  When I deployed to Iraq and worked with an alleged murderer, part of what was so shocking was that this involved someone I had actually met.  Personally.  (I periodically check up on the case and as you can see, he was acquitted...so I'm discussing the impact of the event on me rather than making any real judgment on whether or not he did it.)

The thing is - nobody wants to believe that people we actually know and work with can be bad.  It's always some stranger out there.  Someone you hear about on the news, and never meet in real life.  We can make all sorts of judgments about the people we've never met, harshly claim that they are evil incarnate...and be completely blind when it comes to someone we actually do know.  After all, would someone so awful do something nice, like build a soccer stadium, or joke around and play basketball.  In some ways, I think the worse evil comes from those who have so distanced themselves from the results of their actions that they can obfuscate the cause.  If everyone is to blame, nobody is to blame. 

It's important to me that anyone in a leadership position understand the role they play in creating the work environment.  For signaling what is acceptable and what is not.  For holding people accountable, and making it clear who is responsible (or, alternatively, making it too easy to deny responsibility).

I suppose that's part of why I'm interesting in (boring, to most) things like organizational behavior. 

So anyways.  Here we are in this complicated, fascinated world.  A place where people can think all sorts of different things, feel justified in supporting all sorts of different policies.  And yet we don't want to admit that we can do something to make things different.  Sure, we're vaguely aware that modern slavery exists.  And if some news story flashes and we hear that Nike has slaves making shoes, we might decide not to buy Nikes until we hear they've fixed their supply chain.  But good luck making sure every purchase you make was done without slave labor.  (The attempt to do so is prohibitive.  I shudder to think how long a shopping trip would take if I had to look up every item.)  And even if you think you've checked, in this day and age where finished goods are made by a variety of different companies how can you ever truly know?  Even good companies may not realize how their suppliers produce things.


It's a lot of work.  Much easier to just worry about gorillas getting shot, or share pictures of cute little cats.  (No, not trying to cynically discuss how awful people are.  I share pictures of cute cats too.)

I'll probably post more on this topic later.  I want to explore the disjunct between what we claim we'd do (i.e. stand against evil wherever it is) and what we actually do.