Speaking of Instincts

You should really read about Empress Theodora, wife of Justinian in the Byzantine Empire.

Fair warning though, her story is a bit of a wild ride. 

Leadership

Seeing a lot of people slam SolarWinds for blaming an intern for their security breach, and for good reason.

It's frustrating that this dearth of leadership is so widespread. Whether it's CEOs or Members of Congress, or state legislatures (and more) there's a serious dearth of leadership.

Also saw this today, and... Yeah.

But it's hard to feel motivated to type more on the subject. At least, not tonight. 

After all, 80% of our population gets it. They're not the problem.

I wonder how and why so many of the people in positions like this are such tools. 

Though I suppose Trump showed that it sometimes works in our favor. (ie... Jan 6th might have gone a little differently if he actually led from the front, and marched with his supporters. Terrible though he is, he actually doesn't have the right instincts. Thank God. I get the impression he was acting more like a mob boss - no direct order, make himself scarce and have a good ski I when anything illegal happens. Maybe if he hadn't faked bone spurs he'd have understood. I am rather glad he doesn't. Oh, and if he was truly serious about overthrowing our government he should have gone all in before the inauguration. It's always harder when you don't hold the reins... And the military, Intel agencies, FBI, and other instruments of the state all report to Biden now. Not saying they can't still cause problems - though the 4th of March rumors seem to be quelled a bit. Just, Idk. They should have acted like actual leaders instead of thinking of his supporters as pawns. Clearly didn't understand the whole 'fishers of men' bit that Jesus talked about in the Bible they supposedly care about.) 

Various Odd Thoughts and Ponderings

I don't know if I'll actually post this, or really where to start.

Read another bit in A Course in Miracles. I'm not sure how to explain that book. I've been reading it in fits and starts, and there's still a lot I don't quite see or agree with... But in some ways it's like Sartre (who I didn't really agree with all that much) in that struggling with the ideas presented somehow helps, even if I don't necessarily agree (though sometimes I find it does change my perspective. This is the book that claims everything is either an expression of love or asking for love, and I really ponder that sometimes. Like... Is that really what's going on with assholes like Trump or Stephen Miller? Is all that hate and horrible policy choices really just a desperate cry to be loved? I really can't say, they're people I only know via their public personas).

Anyways, this latest bit says 'if I defend myself I am attacked', and it goes into more detail about what that means. Some of which I get.

That is, sometimes when someone points out that I'm wrong, or I'm afraid I'm wrong, or that I screwed something up... If I take deep breath and relax, and remember that being wrong isn't the end of the world, and that I care more about... Idk. Learning and fixing things than about the impossibility of always being right, then it all tends to turn out fine actually. 

Like, we fix whatever it is and I learn something and it's not like anybody seems to think I'm incompetent or a failure or anything. (This is also part of why I'm periodically fascinated by this book. While I do believe in objective truth, a lot of social interactions come with a subjective element. Our thoughts do influence thing, whether it's mystical mumbo jumbo or our thoughts influencing our body language and thus influencing the people around us subconsciously. I don't really know how it works, I just know that it sometimes does.)

That is, we can create self-fulfilling prophecies, even if we don't think we are. Coming in pre-emptively defensive can make whoever you're dealing with mirror your behavior, and their defensivess feeds into yours and... Well. It's a different experience from when you come in relaxed and joking. 

Also, also. 

I remember realizing back in middle school (?) that it's awfully funny about how the south's fears that the north would force them to give up slavery led to the north forcing them to give up slavery.  Like, acting out of fear often brings about the very thing you're afraid of. I'm not willing to say that's always true though. It comes too close to victim blaming.

So anyways. Defensiveness provokes attack. Weird claim, but in the context I described I can sort of see it. 

But it goes further than that, and says that even planning is a sign of defensivess. 

Which again, okay. I suppose we can take it on faith that God will provide or something (like the birds of the air provided for in Matthew 6:25-30)...

But I don't think I can have faith that strong, to be honest. 

I mean, that quote says you'll be provided for like birds and flowers but, umm.. Birds sometimes starve and flowers sometimes don't get enough rain. Flowers and birds in general might survive, but not necessarily a specific flower and bird. 

And okay, maybe that's a somewhat silly example... But when I was looking for a job I didn't just sit at home waiting for a job to fall in my lap. And you don't really know which jobs will pan out and which wouldn't. So... What's the alternative?

Plus I've thought a bit about materialism and whether it'd be better to, Idk. Give it all up and just wander where the winds take me. I mean, I have a lot of stuff. And I do like it. But I also had all of it stored for over a year when I deployed to Iraq, and at the end of the day (much though I do like some of it) it's just stuff. 

The real concern is my cats and dogs, and I'm not abandoning them. (which also means making sure they have food, and see the vet, and other things.)

Don't get me wrong. I do like living in comfort, and a wandering life seems rather terrible for things like healthcare and reliably having food to eat (and again, there's that lack of confidence in being provided for.) 

Being provided for, to me, means more than just getting enough food so you don't starve. It's also about security, and not feeling like you're constantly having to decide which of the things you want are more important than others. 

I don't occasionally daydream about winning the lottery or something because I could build my dream house or by a fancy car. (I mean, I do. It'd be really nice to build my dream house. But tbh I'd be fine if that never happened). 

It's more that I'd love to feel like I have freedom. All my life has been trade offs and compromises. 

If I had reliable income, my time was pretty much taken up with work... 

And if I wasn't tied down by work, then I was concerned about finances. 

I sometimes wonder what it'd be like...

To be really free to do whatever I wanted. To have the time and resources so I could buy a new laptop and spend a month playing around learning about computer security. Or take one of those hellaciously expensive SANS courses. Or visit those BRICS nations. And maybe take another month to binge watch something and write blog posts about whatever it made me think about.

Being provided for shouldn't just mean the bare minimum for survival, it should include the tools and resources to really thrive. 

And yeah, I just really can't see that happening. Maybe if I were some saint or something, okay with having no place to lay my head (Matthew 8:18-22).

I'm afraid I'm not too keen on that. 

Min Wage

I don't know if members of Congress say such obvious idiocy because they're so out of touch or cynicism.

There don't seem too many responses yet, but it's noteworthy how unsupportive they all are. I doubt the Senator will see that somehow.

I could be wrong, but I have the impression public figures like this never bother to read responses. To be fair, the more political ones can get overwhelmed with comments that are mostly name calling and hating on either the poster or the person calling out the poster. (I suspect staffers do something to review responses and give feedback though? Idk, politicians do like to know how their public is responding.)

How much of the problem with raising the minimum wage is because of people like this, who did well under circumstances decades ago that no longer hold true - and yet never updated their understanding? 

An Aside on My Own Media Consumption

This is pretty much why I stopped getting my news from television.

First, I don't have control over what stories are reported on air, so if I have little to no interest in whatever hot story gets constant coverage, I don't get a say. (I'm sorry to hear that Tiger Woods was injured and I wish him well. That's about all I need to know on that topic, and it takes maybe five minutes to report).

Second, they will try to fill airtime on these stories even when nothing new has happened. I don't need to see y'all talking as if something big is going on when nothing new has happened in an hour and your just hanging around waiting for more.

Third, a lot of times the initial reports are wrong. I get that 'breaking news' is a thing, and all news agencies try to be first but you know what? I'm willing to wait 5min up to a day (or more, depending) to get accuracy in my news. Sometimes I deliberately don't read in depth on a topic until the story has had more time to develop.

And fourth, they all tend to initiate each other and flock to the same stuff. We really don't need five news channels covering one relatively unimportant thing, while they ignore the important ones. (yes, I know. It's probably not profitable to operate that way. This is more wishful thinking and an explanation for why I don't bother with CNN, Fox, MSNBC, OANN, or any video news sources. I might read an article they put out but that's about it. I get most of my news from links in a news aggregator site. And Twitter, but I have to be careful with that one. Twitter is often the fastest source of news, but also the least reliable.)

Journalism

I really liked this article, discussing some lessons learned from covering politics in the time of Trump.

It also touches on a few things I've been thinking of, in terms of why there's so much distrust for MSM... As well as the feeling that journalists are not living up to their role as the fourth estate.

There's a lot to discuss there, and some things I don't really have insight into (this article helps validate some of those thoughts. Particularly the issues with access journalism, and the willingness to overlook negative stories in order to maintain the relationships that give you access for others. It's a thorny problem that I don't have a good answer for. Other than that journalists, like all of us, have to use their best judgment. Hopefully guided by the question about what best serves the public interest.)

What did not get addressed here, and I'm less sure about, is somewhat related -

I recall reading the biography about a journalist some time ago (I think it was Robert Novak? It's been a while). Anyways, one of the things I remember most was when he discussed his salary... Because while he didn't consider himself all that wealthy (and I'm sure in comparison to the many political leaders he covered he wasn't), he was nowhere near the average, and was probably in the 1%.

I'm sure most of the smaller media organizations don't pay as well (local news, plus some of the smaller national news agencies), but I also suspect that quite a few of the big names get paid similar.

Why does this matter?

Because there's a sense that they aren't acting as the eyes and ears of the general public, but rather are part of the establishment.

Its more complicated than that, I think. Which is part of the reason I haven't sat down to actually write something earlier. 

I mean... The powers-that-be have a long history of using the media, so it's hard to say whether this is truly different. Maybe our expectations were never actually met.

Plus there's the issue that they are businesses. They have to make a profit, something many of them are struggling to do right now. Is it reasonable to expect them to spend money and resources doing in depth reporting on policy issues that most Americans will never read? (I mean, I probably would. But I'm definitely not the norm here.)

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the MSM doesn't seem to represent the general public. Idk if that's because of the people who own the newspapers and news channels, if it's because top reporters are likely to be the 1%, if it's access journalism and the tendency to relate to the people you're constantly around, or what.

My poli sci classes talked about regulatory capture. That is in order to understand how to best regulate an industry the regulators generally have to work with and elicit the expertise of the businesses they regulate. 

The danger is that these agencies start serving the interests of those businesses, rather than the general public for which they were established. 

It feels kind of like the same thing has happened to MSM. And that noone - nobody - not the Republicans, nor Democrats. Definitely not the CEOs or Wall Street brokers, and not even the journalists are looking out for or care about the general public. 

Further Addendum

You can keep Schwarzenegger's 'servant's heart' and be a member of any political party.

It isn't actually saying that you must support any particular policy. However... 

The thing about putting ideas into practice, about executing them (which does primarily fall under the executive branch, but is also important for legislation) is that it requires feedback adjustment to achieve your goals. Fine tuning.

I could give some of the more famous sayings on this ('no plan survives contact with the enemy' comes to mind, though that phrase presupposes an enemy) but the point is that you have to check to see if your plan is working and adjust as needed.

When asked if it's better to have a good plan poorly executed or a poor plan well executed, I go with the latter - because the adjustments you make to execute it will make up for the weaknesses in the initial starting point. (This assumes it's a 'poor' plan in that it's not well thought out and doesn't account for key elements in the plan, and not a bad plan because the end goal is bad.)

So when trickle down economics was first proposed its entirely possible that people who genuinely cared for the American public supported it. There have been times in the past when burdensome taxes (as an example) hurt more than helped.

That said, you have to monitor the results, get the facts, and adjust as needed. As I keep saying, the tool best suited to one situation may not be well suited to another. 

We have had ample time to see the results, and there's a pretty strong consensus that it doesn't.

That means anyone still pushing it either a) isn't paying attention or b) knows it doesn't work and doesn't care.

When people care about finding solutions it drives them to find policies that work.

They'll monitor the results and try something else if what they're doing isn't working. (this, btw, describes a lot of how we troubleshoot in tech. See an error, look up possible reasons. Try a possible solution, check if it worked. If it does, great. If not, try something else. Rinse and repeat until you fix it.)

If we all care about the American people, we'll care about bankruptcies and evictions and healthcare on a holistic level. 

We can argue about whether the pharmaceutical industry really needs to charge crazy amounts for insulin in order to fund their research and development, or whether it's more important to make sure Americans don't have to spend massive amounts of money on something that can be manufactured rather cheaply in order to avoid dying - and in the course of that argument we might come up with a plan to help reduce the costs to diabetics while supporting a good R&D program.

It's when people lose sight of the end goal and get locked into one particular plan that things start going wrong. Especially, especially if you have to manufacture evidence to support your plan. 

Climate change is kind of like trickle down economics. Back in the day there were valid reasons to question it. (I still remember my father, who had a bachelor's in geology and master's in meteorology, complaining about how media misrepresented the hole in the ozone layer. Not that he was a climate change denier. He acknowledged it had grown bigger, and as a scientific consensus emerged he accepts that as well. But back when this was a thing he pointed out that there had always been a hole. Having a hole in and of itself wasn't the problem, so much as whether our actions were making it bigger.)

Now that a scientific consensus has formed, the people still insisting its not a problem are (again) either not paying attention and not updating their understanding as we continue to learn about it, or know and just don't care.

Addendum

I wanted to clarify a few things from yesterday.

Not to pick on Ted Cruz (though that's easy to do), or Texas Republicans, or Republicans at large. Or Democrats, though I am lumping them in with my criticisms of the powers-that-be.

Its more that what just happened in Texas is a great example of the systemic problem. 

I don't think that the people I'm about to ding are necessarily more evil or terrible than anyone else. It's more like... 

I think they're on autopilot. I think they're showing the types of belief systems that crop up repeatedly in society's 'haves', generally right before their nation falls.

We have 'the rise and fall of nations' in part because this repeatedly and consistently happens, and you have to be aware and take steps to prevent it. (Like executives making sure their subordinates make good decisions about what they pass up to her/him, what they can handle themselves, and what they ignore. Also taking steps to make sure said subordinates give them the truth, rather than what they want to hear. Building a bubble of 'yes-men' is common, and all too likely to happen unless you put the work in.)

Ted Cruz going to Cancun when Texans are dying of hypothermia, letting fires rage out of control, dealing with busted pipes (TikTok has a ton of videos), lack of water, and horrendously high electric bills.

Meanwhile businesses are 'hitting the jackpot', and Texas Republicans are trying to point fingers and play the blame game.

The callousness and terrible values on full display are all symptoms of the larger problem. 

They're unmoored. Lost. It's not just that Ted Cruz went on vacation while people were dying. It's not even the complete lack of awareness of how it would look. 

Its that he's missing what Schwarzenegger called a 'servant's heart', and I am referring to when I talk about being a good shepherd.

Just as it's easy to create a bubble of yes-men, it's also easy to get so focused on 'winning' that you lose sight of why you're fighting in the first place.

Hmmm, it's more than that, and can come in different flavors. (and I'm not sure I can presume to know why people are fighting. I just assume most of them think it's for good reasons, and believe they're good people.) 

For example, I remember being unable to get the equipment we needed because generals many levels above my pay grade were locked in a budget battle.

Its not that they shouldn't fight, necessarily. It's that your larger goal acts like the North Star, and gives you something to steer by.

It's easy to justify your side of that budget battle. I don't even really know what it was about, but it's not hard to think of the possibilities. The problem is when they take so long sorting it out that it has a real impact on the training we were preparing for.

Servant leadership can act like that North Star. It's a guiding principle that can help sort our when you're fighting because you've lost sight of things, and when you really are fighting for a greater purpose. 

I'm going to step away from that a bit to throw in some more personal anecdotes. Oh, and forgive the crudeness.. 

This is common enough that we have terms for it, especially in the army. They're pissing contests, or dick-swinging contests. (someone relayed a joke about the 10th Mountain Division patch. That the crossed swords really represented crossed dicks.) There's jokes about all the testosterone, and officers and NCOs getting involved in stupid stuff... Just because.

Hell, that history book on Stalingrad noted that some people saw it as a pissing contest between Hitler and Stalin (and they were willing to lose a LOT of soldiers in order to win).

I hope I'm also clear in saying that the problem isn't the fighting itself (especially bureaucratic infighting, which for the most part doesn't have a death toll. At least not directly.)

Its losing sight of the bigger picture. It's locking horns over things that are ultimately petty or irrelevant, and ignoring or overlooking the impact. 

Its being so focused on winning the political battle that your first reaction to a deadly winter storm is to blame green energy. 

People who are guided by a servant's heart know, immediately, that your first concern has to be taking care of your people. However you can from where you are. 

Whether it's offering up cars with generators, coordinating relief, donating to those doing said coordination, working to prevent Texans from getting hit with ludicrous power bills, helping get resources from FEMA and the federal government... If you cared about your people you'd be looking for ways to help.

Instead, we got federal aid sitting idly by because nobody could tell them where to go.

Y'all done lost the plot. 

Perspective

The responses here - wow. The tweet that got me to actually read it said that people in the replies were done with this shit, and they weren't lying.

I was talking to my brother the other day about something related. Like, I know there's all that stuff about budget reconciation, and that Democrats only have a slim majority...

But taking care of the American people in a massive crisis shouldn't be a partisan issue. 

There is something seriously wrong with what I keep referring to as the 'powers-that-be'. (I picked up the phrase from a sci-fi book ages ago, and I like it because it isn't strictly referring to Members of Congress, or the president. Rather, it captures all the movers and shakers who help decide what sorts of issues get attention and support. Politicians, lobbyists, corporations, media mogul,wealthy donors... All of it. And they're collectively doing a crap job of it, but good luck convincing them of that. 😕🙄😔)

I've talked about being a 'good shepherd' before, and husbandry, and the joy of helping someone grow into their full potential...

But somehow things that seem obvious and common sense get lost when people actually have power. Like... There's a difference between fighting for a larger share of the economic pie and fighting for policies to grow the pie, and they do too much of the former and not enough of the latter. 

And while I've been somewhat skeptical when I hear people talking about how the rich think the poor somehow deserve to suffer (I haven't heard actual quotes or credible sources for it, but I can't imagine anyone thinking that way would go public with it. Then again, people have been doing a lot of things I hadn't thought they'd be dumb enough to do, so maybe my expectations are wrong.)

Anyways, skeptical though I've been... The policies and political battles make it seem believable. I may personally be lucky enough not to need assistance, but giving all that money to businesses and hardly anything to actual people?

Its the 2008 financial crisis all over again. Doesn't matter if it's Republican or Democrat, they're influenced by people that will give blank checks to multi million dollar corporations and fight against anything for the people who need it the most. 

The worst part is I'm pretty sure they're doing it backwards. Like, not just in the 'this would benefit me, do of course I want it' kind of way. More like back after 9/11, when they wanted people to spend money to help grow the economy. You have to have money to spend it.

Economics talks a lot about privatization and business, and the classic historical example was changing from a feudal system where the aristocrats took everything, and shifting towards one where people owned their land,worked it, and were able to trade and sell the surplus. 

You have to have a surplus to do that with. 

I'm not saying corporations or banks or businesses aren't important. Having access to loans (to start businesses, improve them, etc) is also important.

It's just that if people had been given the money directly they could have paid their mortgages... And the business would have been fine. 

That's overly simplistic, I know. Part of the issue had to do with... Crap, I forget the terms. It's been too long since I read up on this. Oh, right. Part of it was how they packaged and valued the mortgages of people at risk of defaulting, and some of it also had to do with perception and the complicated ways banks loan each other money. And some of it is because the things they do to try and secure a profit all too often mean that we all suffer if they do. 'too big to fail', and of course nobody wants a recession.. The people who already aren't that well off tend to suffer the most then. Lost jobs, bankruptcy, etc. But it still burns that they create a system where they supposedly deserve high paychecks - for taking risks, or because of how much they know - but then they don't have the skills to back it up. Then they still get golden parachutes and government bailouts while good, decent, hard working Americans wind up owing more than their homes are worth and/or going bankrupt. (I'm typing this more to explain why people feel the way they do, rather than as a factual assessment of the situation. It's also why spite is more and more of a factor, like we saw with GameStop. And as the replies I linked to above show, people are angry/frustrated/fed up. It's kind of a shame Trump was a con artist who never intended to deliver for the populist sentiment he tapped into, because the powers-that-be have been failing us for a while now.) 

The powers-that-be protect their own, and give blank checks to those who wouldn't need them in the first place if they all did a better job of shepherding their flock. 

An Example

I'm sharing this because it's all too typical - and because it is so very, very, very frustrating when you want to do a good job, don't want to cause trouble, and yet run into stuff like this. 

None of it is new, or should be a surprise... And yet company leaders still don't take it seriously. 

It doesn't just happen with women, either. I'd believe the people criticizing 'woke' culture more if I saw signs that decision makers actually were working to address this sort of thing.

Unfortunately, far too often they just want everyone else to just shut up, stop complaining, and accept the way they do things. 

Quick (?) Aside

I was thinking about existentialism.

Or rather, had a discussion elsewhere about 'survival of the fittest' BS, and cooperation and whatnot, and it got me thinking about what the point of it all is.

Which is pretty much what the philosophy of existentialism was about.

Okay, technically it "explores the problem of human existence."

Anyways, while we all have to find our own meaning, I'm reminded of Jim Collins and his business books... And how great companies had a motivating purpose.

The Texas disaster, which brings up memories of Texas politicians volunteering grannies to die (of Covid) for the sake of the economy, and like...

Is that really what you think we exist for?

Pertaining to Texas (Bear With Me)

One thing (of many horrific things) that struck me about the battle for Stalingrad was this:

The German situation was dire in part because they were cut off from their supply chain - yes, armies run on their stomachs. Beans and bullets, or whatever pithy phrase captures the importance of making sure the people out on the front lines have the supplies they need to fight. Guns are almost useless without bullets, tanks not very helpful without fuel, and soldiers not very capable of fighting when they're starving. All of which were demonstrated in the battle for Stalingrad, and is probably why 'Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics' is a famous quote.

But there was a moment where if decisive action was taken, they might have broken through the surrounding forces and reconnected with their supply chain. It would have meant giving up on Stalingrad and withdrawing, and it probably would have been a pretty horrible fight, but it probably would have been better than losing their entire force.

But at the moment when Hitler should have made that decision, when he was exploring his options, he decided that he could supply his forces by airlift.

Now, a quick Google search shows that the 'villain' who promised it was possible might not have been the real problem.

It could be that Hitler only heard what he wanted to hear, ignored all the caveats that went with the assessment that it was, possible, and basically forced Hermann Göring to accept the plan. 

Still, the initial villainization of Hermann Göring seemed... Believable. 

After all, history is full of fools promising more than they can deliver. Especially if they think they'll get some sort of benefit from it. And many of them don't seem to care about the consequences of failing, especially if they aren't the ones who suffer for it. 

When you have a former Texas governor declaring that “Texans would be without electricity for longer than three days to keep the federal government out of their business,” did he actually check with anyone who had been living without power for the last couple of days? 

Was he currently trying to live without power? Or heat? 

Or was he saying that from a nice heated room, with clean water and easy access to a working kitchen? 

Because I think we all know that he's not one of the Texans dealing with burst pipes, freezing homes, and more. The stuff I'm seeing online is outright horrific... But sure, he can speak for the entire state, and push for an agenda that he won't have to suffer the consequences of. 

It's kind of exhausting, how often the ones in power show how completely callous and uncaring they are. 

Like, why? Why is it so hard to genuinely 'love thy neighbor'? 

How can they be so completely and utterly lost, that when people are dying of carbon monoxide poisoning in desperate attempts to stay warm, and icicles are growing inside Texas homes... 

These guys are going around trying to blame Democrats, and wind power, and doing pretty much anything other than taking care of their people. 

Texas Winter Weather

The stories coming out of Texas are horrific. 

A Good Question

For more than just the sector targeted.

I really like the responses too, because you can see a spectrum of individual reactions to the phrase 'try harder'.

It also gets a little bit into what I was talking about before, w/regards to selecting people who can persist at figuring things out, as well as some good examples of when it hurts. 

Side Note

An interesting observation. Not something I feel qualified to judge, but it does fit.

Impeachment Trial

What a disgrace.

We definitely have our work cut out for us. 

A Bit More on Internalized Rules of Thumb

It's been a long week, and my head is full of debugging and investigating and work-related stuff. 

It might be better to do so tomorrow when I'm less focused on other things, but I wanted to go ahead and knock out a few thoughts.

My previous posts focused mostly on rather well-known and widely accepted beliefs. At least, well-known and widely accepted in our Christian-based society. Not necessarily practiced as much as it should for all of that, but hardly anyone truly argues that the Bible is wrong about loving your neighbor, treating others as you want to be treated, and so on. (We're just... not that good at actually doing so.)

The rest of this is more about ideas and thoughts I've come to based on my personal experiences and as related to the world we currently live in. In looking back, quite a bit of it started when I worked in an area that... well, was a bit of a culture shock for me. 

You see, there were stories of people who just 'lost' paperwork for people they disliked. Promotion papers? Awards? Somehow they never made it up to the commander's desk. It was as though the entire organization was imbued with infighting, and things were done more for where it got you in this elaborate game (with hidden rules) than any objective need.

I don't want to sound like I'm villainizing everyone there. I don't think any one person was responsible, or that they were all bad people. 

It's more that... that I knew it didn't have to be like that. Not because I was a visionary (like the people who envisioned the type of world we could live in if we all followed the Golden Rule or Silver Rule), but because I'd actually had experience with such places.

I'm trying to put this into words for those who don't already get it, but tbh I'm not sure it's possible. Some of the discussions we had at this place were "it's like this everywhere." And they just didn't believe it could be any other way. (In one conversation, they argued that farmer's were one of the most self-interested groups out there.)

I also don't want to imply that the less political places I worked with were utopias. It's true that everywhere you go, wherever you have people working together, there will be some sort of politics. Some sort of internal dynamics. 

It's more a matter of degree than anything else.

Like 'losing' paperwork for people you don't like. I don't think I had ever worried about that before. Processing paperwork is just part of the job, and if someone has a problem with it there are better ways to handle it. (Like talking to the person you're upset with directly, or telling a more appropriate person about your reservations regarding promotions or awards. Or, in the most dramatic cases... resigning your position.)

That led to one of my personal rules - professionalism is doing your job regardless of how you personally feel about the people involved. If that's too much, then speak up and say something... or leave. Don't pull this passive-aggressive crap. Don't refuse to speak up to the people who can actually change things, but bitch and moan to everyone around you and make anyone subordinate to you suffer. Either do the work to fix it, admit you're not willing to and keep your head down (but still do a professional job), or leave.

This is, btw, about as simple to say and hard to do as 'love thy neighbor'. There are plenty of times I just want to complain about some BS without actually putting in the work of communicating it up the chain, or fixing it. (That's sort of what's going on with this current project. There are issues, and sometimes it's frustrating. But have I actually told the people who need to know about it? Have I given them the chance to fix it?)

In a similar vein, I will argue (behind closed doors preferably) for my position right up until the decision has been made... but once the decision is made I will support the team and try to make it work, regardless of whether it's what I wanted or not. There are some exceptions and grey areas to this, but for the most part the same rules apply - do what you can to change it without crossing the line into sabotage and undermining the decision-makers, accept the loss and try harder next time, or leave.

I do like to bolster that notion with another idea. Except now that I try to put it into words I can't remember where I heard it, or how it was phrased. Iirc, it was based off Chinese philosophy, and it works a bit like martial arts. Aiding someone as they move so that they extend too far and lose their balance.

The main idea is this: if you want to defeat an idea, sometimes enabling it will actually make it lose power more quickly. The faster it grows, the more it's given the chance to work... the more quickly the flaws appear and more quickly it fades away and dies.

This is not a tactic I'd try for everything. Just a tool in the kit bag, a strategy to consider. One I think applies rather nicely to certain political fights. Because when you sabotage an idea, and put in 'poison pills', and do things to make sure it fails... you also give the people supporting that idea reason to blame you for the failure. Then they don't have to think about any flaws in the idea itself.

Of course if I think something is a bad idea I'll try to argue for something better, but if the decision has been made and it's not what I wanted? I will fully and completely support putting the other idea in practice (barring ethical and legal concerns). 

If I'm right, it'll fail anyway. (This is slightly over simplifying it, as we're excellent at obfuscating cause and effect. Helps to have systems that discourage that, too.)

And if I'm wrong... well. I'll have learned something, and we won't all suffer because I blocked a good idea.

We have fifty states, and numerous small cities and towns throughout. We can afford to let them try out their various ideas. (Within reason. For example, Jim Crow laws that keep American citizens from exercising their rights are not something we can afford to let local governments experiment with.)

I could probably expand on the theme, but I'm about done for the day. I'll just reiterate -

Push down to the lower levels (and Congress, btw, can push quite a bit to the Executive Branch as well as the states. I'll talk some other time about oversight and accountability, but it's not always a bad thing to give free rein to the people putting your ideas in practice) whatever is appropriate for them to decide for themselves.

Be professional, and do your job regardless of what you think about the people involved. 

If that's not possible, leave.

Don't undermine and sabotage things just because you don't agree. Maybe even do your best to help put those ideas into practice. It'll keep people from thinking you're the reason it failed and make it easier to focus on the flaws in the idea.

I suspect that transforming toxic organizations involves reaching some sort of critical mass of people who think like this (and, alternatively... the more people justify losing paperwork for people they don't like, undermining policy decisions they disagree with, and creating elaborate plots to 'win' against internal opponents the more toxic and destructive your organization will be.)

Pruning Shears

I've got a little bit of time this morning, so I wanted to elaborate on the pruning shears comment.

Organizations - all of them, not just the government - have patterns that are almost organic.

That is, one of the first things people do is try to expand their bureaucratic empire. 

And organizations that were started with a clear goal and purpose don't generally stand down when they've reached that goal. Too many people are invested in the organization itself, so they generally start looking for a new raison d'etre.

Upper echelons also have a tendency to react to something by showing action - any action. Not necessarily the smartest action, but it proves they're doing something and can soothe people's worries.

There's also a tendency to reach for the quickest and easiest answer, but not necessarily the best. 

So when I say that I, personally, had hoped conservatives would act like 'pruning shears', it was in the Russell Kirk sense. Not of trying to obstruct and block legislation, but in raising concerns that can lead to better, more thoughtful legislation that is reconciled with our traditions and values. In particular empowering the lowest level of government possible rather than mindlessly building a more centralized system. (The Constitution is only 4 pages long, though the amendments make it longer. If we go by word count and put it in a modern font, the Constitution and amendments combined is about 19 pages. If legislation is 3,000+ pages long I'd have serious questions about how much of that truly needs to be in a federal bill, and how much could/should be shoved off to the states. Keep it simple and empower the lower levels please. Think very carefully about what needs to be specified and handled at the federal level.)

None of this is supposed to make government impossible, or even public goods like roads, education, and healthcare. It's supposed to make it better. 

Too bad Republicans appear to have lost sight of that. 

Update

Mostly been busy at work (my code worked, but there was a question about whether it was the best way of doing it, so I was working on making sure a for loop with a try/catch block would retry the exceptions I wanted to retry and throw any other exception back. I'm sure that's mostly technical gibberish to those not in tech, so I'll just add this. The issue was making sure the right error messages got sent if certain things went wrong. I think I figured it out, though am waiting for someone who actually knows Python to be free to look it over.)

I probably also ought to say something about the impeachment trial, but I'm not sure what to say. I mean, there's more details coming out and seeing it all together has an emotional impact, but I already think Trump is guilty. 

And we already know the Republican Party has lost the plot. 

Like, I'm not exactly thrilled to give Democrats completely free rein (despite Americans repeatedly splitting tickets so the branches aren't controlled by any one party, these morons just don't get it. I can't speak for everyone, but I see value in having voices ask 'does this need an entirely new government agency?', 'should this be our responsibility?', and so on. It's like taking pruning shears to the rampant growth all organizations tend towards when left unchecked. Alas, they get so caught up in 'defeating the enemy' that they start doing stupid stunts instead of actually getting their shit together and making things work. Hell, Republicans seem to have a vested interest in making sure it doesn't work. That's pretty much what they aim for with the whole insistence on cutting taxes - so they can do as Norquist says and shrink it down to the point they can drown it in a bathtub. Complete fools.)

Anyways, not thrilled... But right now the Republicans have shown that they can't be trusted anywhere near any sort of position of power. 

There may - may - be a few exceptions. A few that have publicly stood up for our Constitution and democracy, even when they were facing serious pressure. The 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Trump, the Georgia officials who refused to lie for Trump, Romney... Maybe.

A few others I may not be aware of. 

But by and large anyone who still calls themselves a Republican and isn't vocally speaking out against what Trump has done has shown that they can't be trusted. They'll put their own self interest or their party's interest over their oath of office.

So whatever. I don't know if there will be enough votes to convict, but I'm paying attention more to see what this reveals - about individual characters, about the depth of the problem, and whatever else comes to light. 

Speaking of signal boosting

I'd like to know about her concerns with infrastructure cybersecurity.

An Aside

Jesus was Jewish, and Paul played a huge role in bringing what we now call Christianity to non-Jews (there's quite a bit in the Bible about the tensions between Peter, who led many of the Jewish disciples, and Paul. It's part of how our religion evolved so that Christians don't have to follow Jewish practices. Like eating pork.)

Anyways, I brought that up because it means that white Christian Americans (many of whom are Anglo-Saxon) believe in the teachings of a Jewish man. Teachings that were later spread by the Roman Empire.

And while genealogy is complex and a lot of people are inrerralated if you go back far enough, many of us are not descended from Jews or Romans.

Like... People who bring out the best in us can do so regardless of their race or ethnicity, and we all benefit. 

I won't say that's why what happened with Fred Hampton bothers me, but it's definitely one of the lesser reasons why it was a bad call. 

There's a movie out about this now, though I haven't seen it and am not sure if I will - Judas and the Black Messiah. 

And there's something rather awful about people being so threatened by someone doing good (nonviolent social activism, so far as I can tell) that they killed him.

The ones behind it are no different from the Romans who killed Jesus - it's pretty much the exact same reasoning.

But I'll talk about that some other time. Or rather, talk about losing and the fear of losing. Something like that, it's related to my post about how we use free will, and hasn't gelled enough to write.

The idea that all of America lost out, though - 

That if Fred Hampton was as big a deal as they thought, that he could have benefited all of us.

That's something worth reflecting on. 

Stalingrad

Finished Enemy at the Gates and I don't even know what to say.

I'll probably write more after I've had time to sit with it for a bit. 

I did want to... Clarify? Add?

I've come to realize most of my impressions of Russia (and probably other American impressions) are from movies like Hunt for Red October, The Russians are Coming, and more.

And we blend Russia and the Soviet Union together a lot, for obvious reasons. 

That is to say, when we think of Russians we tend to think of them as white. But the Soviet Union covered quite a bit of territory, including Tartars and some of the various -stans (like Kazakhstan before it left the USSR). They're strongly influenced by the Mongols... And other groups I'm sure I have no idea about. My understanding of Central Eurasian history is not the greatest. 

Anyways, the point is that given how horribly we Americans lump different people together we'd probably call them Asian.

I'm not sure how much Nazi racism played a role in what happened (Hitler allied with Japan, and a cursory search gives me the impression that since they were useful he didn't stir up sentiment against all Asians as much as he did other ethnic groups, but it's hard to believe they thought of them as true equals).

The eastern front definitely seems more brutal and inhumane, at least compared to what I've read about the western. 

Free Will and How We Exercise It

To follow on from my previous post, we have free will. 

So how should we use it?

I'm going to bring together a number of topics I've talked about over the years, so some of this is definitely repetitive.

Like how we choose our responses. If someone tries to punch you, most people think in simple terms - dodge. Block. Punch back.

But as martial artists know, there are other options. Slip a little to the inside, get your hip under and lift, guide them off their feet and/or off balance and throw. 

You have options in how hard or soft to respond: whether you're going for a killing blow, or a joint lock where you can control them, or simply trying to avoid their attacks without getting hurt. 

You can't always control what other people do, but you can almost always control how you respond to it. 

Exercising free will thus involves consciously choosing those responses, with the awareness of how your response will interact with the world around you, so that you can choose an action that will lead to the kind of world you want to live in.

Okay, that's a mouthful. Let me break it down.

Have you ever shared something or seen something shared on social media with the simple phrase 'signal boost'? 

People are choosing to amplify whatever they're sharing. They're not creating the message, they're just trying to make sure it spreads a little further and has a wider impact. 

Conversely, I am where chain letters go to die. All of that "share this with ten other people?" stuff? Yeah, no. Not spreading that, not amplifying it, not boosting it. (Obviously, numerous other people do not share my view here, or we wouldn't still be seeing them.)

This goes back to an idea that I know for sure is part of Christian and Confucian traditions, and wouldn't surprise me to find in others.

The Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12) - 

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

The Silver Rule - 

What I do not wish others to do to me, I do not wish to do to others

(I found a post discussing the Silver Rule in more depth here.)

Both touch on something I've pointed out before - that whatever we choose to do, other people tend to copy and mimic it. And we will see other people doing the exact same thing.

That, for example, lying about election results when it means supporting Trump also means that some people will claim Mitch McConnell only won because of election fraud. That's a bit simplified, but I think you see my point.

It's a bit like the physics 'transfer of force' example (which I just learned is called a Newton's cradle) - 

Both of these traditions are pointing out the same thing, and pointing out that we can deliberately choose which types of behaviors we want spreading (or not.)

As a lot of people paraphrase Mahatma Gandhi - 'Be the change you want to see'.

This brings up something else. Most of what I'm saying is not actually new, so much as showing how I've come to internalize and agree with quite a bit of our collective wisdom. 

It's more like Jesus said "Love your neighbor as thyself" and I'm saying "Yes. Really."

This is perhaps better captured in some out-of-character Jesus memes-

Yes. He really meant it. No. Whatever excuse you've come up with to justify not loving your neighbor is not okay.

I know quite a few people are down on religion these days (understandable given some of the ways people of faith abuse the name of God), but I do believe religions have something important and useful to say about us. About human nature, and how we can better build the societies we live in.

That's not to try and say all religions are ultimately the same, or to minimize their very real differences. Nor am I saying people without religion are lost, since many of them have internalized their own moral codes. I mostly draw on the Bible and Christianity because that's what I'm most familiar with. 

Here's another example of what I'm talking about.

Most people have heard of 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.'  It's from the Old Testament, and to modern ears it sounds kind of... vengeful.

But as I understand it, this was a way of limiting violence. As science has shown, we all have a tendency to feel the harm done to us is greater than the harm we do to others. That is, if someone cuts off your arm you might feel justice is served after you've killed them. After killing them, his family may feel justice is served by killing you and two other members of your family. 

The harm done keeps getting escalated until you're in a blood feud, and each side feels like they're just trying to get justice.

So the Bible limited it...  they said if you lose an eye, justice would be taking the other guy's eye. NOT killing him. 

Keep it proportional, don't go justifying an even worse response as retaliation. (I found it interesting that The Untamed had almost the exact same issue, without the religious elements. A villain in the story lost a finger, and in retaliation murdered the family of the guy who hurt him. When someone pointed out that a pinkie was not worth the lives of all the people he killed, he insisted it was. After all, it was his finger.)

The New Testament even goes further, though there's enough debate about what Jesus meant by 'turn the other cheek' that I don't want to dwell on it too much. 

There have been some interesting experiments in game theory, regarding tit-for-tat (a strategy in experiments where two players play against each other multiple times, so that they get to know each other and build strategies accordingly. Tit-for-tat is a strategy where you cooperate on the first round, and then basically mimic the other person's behavior from the previous round. If they cooperated, you cooperate again. If they didn't, you don't. There's a lot more to it than that, of course, but you can read up on that yourself.)

What's interesting is that in at least some scenarios, a strategy of 'forgiving' a lack of cooperation works. Iirc, it worked best in scenarios where players accidentally defect, or might have misunderstood and defected. 

More importantly though, I think 'turn the other cheek' relates more to standing up for yourself while making it clear you're not attacking the other side. (Again, like I've discussed in previous posts).

It allows you to help provide criticism and negative feedback without making it personal, or sending the signal that you hate and want to harm the other side. (This is where I really think al Qaeda and other extreme jihadists get it wrong. Suicide bombing where you murder a bunch of people is never holy, because you have mixed up the holiness with attack. The hatred and anger and willingness to do harm overwhelms any other message they are trying to send.)

I could go on and on, but this is the sort of thing anyone with interest can dig into for themselves. What's more interesting is applying it in the world today.

Choose what you want to amplify, choose when you want to act as a breakwater. Think about your full range of options, and choose the one that is most proportional and most likely to build the world you want to live in.

Don't murder people. (Think about it. If you murdered someone for money, what's to stop someone else from murdering you for the same reason? If you let that go unchecked, soon we're all living in constant paranoia that someone is going to try and kill us. Let's just... not do that.)

Don't lie. (Same reasoning.)

Really. It doesn't matter that the other side is doing it. It doesn't matter that you think they're awful and terrible people who need to be defeated. Find another way to respond to them. (You're adults, aren't you? Surely you know by now that 'he started it' is a child's way of thinking.)

Stop this disproportional escalating political nonsense where everything you do is justified by the horrible _____, and everything they do is proof of their utter depravity. 

This doesn't exactly tell you want to do instead, of course... but there is a full range of choices and responding in kind (but harder) is only one of them.

On Newbies

I feel like I should explain my comment on the IT industry a little more.

My first job after college was in the military, and I've come to appreciate that the military is really great at breaking down large and complex topics into chunks clear enough that anyone can understand.

Yes, you may have 'death by PowerPoint'. Your teachers may not be very engaging, may even read the slides verbatim in the most boring way possible, and some courses are like drinking from a firehose. But quite a bit of what you need to know is broken into a clear lesson plan. And there's a ton of manuals (that most soldiers never bother to read 😂) that you can refer to if you have any questions.

And when I was a shipping supervisor, I had to learn what my people knew (can't manage what you don't understand. Plus helps with the whole 'lead by example' and 'lead from the front' thing.) so yes, I learned how to pick orders and drive a fork truck (Badly. They make it look so easy). And an order picker.

And we had ISO standards and audits and inspections and had to document all the tasks, and training, and make sure our trainers were certified, and a whole bunch of other things. 

So when I say that IT seems terrible at training new people, it's because I have something to compare it to. 

And from what I hear from others outside my company, it's pretty much industry wide. 

I get not wanting to have to spoon feed people who should show some initiative and figure it out (via Google, or the classic RTFM). I guess they're trying to select for people like that? Idk... But there's probably a ton of other people who could be valuable contributors with just a little bit of support.

I'm kind of glad I came into this late in life, and with my previous experience. 

Update

I do still have thoughts on my latest topics, but work was kind of a pain today so I'll probably do it tomorrow.

I... I have a love/hate relationship with coding. I hate the struggle (more on that in a bit), but it is a pretty great feeling when you figure out how to make it work.

That said, there's a reason I applied for the technical engineering position, and not as a developer. 

Some of the industry changes mean those roles may converge a bit (I'll spare you the details).

Anyways. When I first started here, about a year and a half ago, I got tapped for one of the attempts at transitioning to those new roles. 

And it's been an experience. 

Its not so much that coding is hard... It's just that when you're new it's like you hit roadblock after roadblock. 

We use special tools that can help error check as we code, but setting up your environment is a task all by itself. 

See, we all get the basic functions when we install a programming language, but there are a lot of tools that have already been coded to help with more specialized work. 

A university might regularly use specialized math formulas. A company that offers up an app for your phone might use some other functions. If we tried installing all of the possible coding resources we'd be wasting a lot of computer resources on things we never use. 

So you install the particular packages, modules, libraries, etc. Just the ones you need. (there are ways of documentating that and ensuring everything is installed, but a) sometimes you need to install something else first and b) some things get missed. 

Which means that this week I first couldn't even run the code I was interested in. Not in my IDE at least. 

I had to install something else entirely (which was a pain figuring out). 

Then I ran into a different issue, though I resolved that one pretty quickly. 

Only for something else to appear... 

All before I really coded anything. 

I know, I know. Once you get setup it gets easier.

There's a lot more to it, and it's been rather frustrating. Especially since (as my team and boss are all integration engineers) I can't really ask them for help.

But I worked with someone today who definitely knew a lot more, and got a lot closer to where I need to be. (He couldn't help with everything, and was suggesting I just create a local project to test with. It's just that doing that means cutting out all the parts specifical to our code base. Maybe a more experienced programmer could quickly and easily do it. Idk, but the developer who's been the most help was able to point me in the right direction. That one was a fairly easy fix, and I'm pretty much ready for business.

Or rather, finished the day researching how to do what I want, and hopefully Monday I can actually get it done. 

This, btw, reminds me of the training I got sent to about a year ago. We were covering some of the tools for testing your code, and I commented that there was a world of difference between the coding we learned in school and the tools we were using (junit, gradle, maven, ummm... I don't even remember everything tbh).

Like, it's great that I understand for loops and while loops and try/catch statements and functions and all that. But I think it would have been nice to have an entire course on IDEs, and how to set them up. I'm sure I'm only using a fraction of the resources in my current one.

The funny thing about that training though. Most of the other people there were developers, and a) one flat out said they were never taught this stuff in school either. And just had to figure it out. (part of why I think IT does a horrible job at teaching newbies) and b) I somehow seemed to understand more than some?

Like... It's mostly just asking questions from anyone willing to spare a moment, googling the crap out of things, and persisting... 

But everyone else at that training seemed to struggle too, and I seemed to pick up some things better. 

And even though I just spent an entire blog post complaining about this, I probably know more about all of this than the others working on this project (mostly because the developer I go to for help used to be on the team, and wrote most of it, so I've somewhat poorly been filling in for him now that he's not there.)

It kind of makes me think all of us are just faking it. (Exaggeration. Slightly.)

All the talk from infosec Twitter about imposter syndrome might even be endemic to tech. 

I'm not sure how I feel about that. 

And Instead We Get This...

All the great things people could do to make the world better, and instead we've got wealthy and powerful people using their money like this.

You have to wonder what kind of people can lie and spread hate and somehow think they're doing anything worthwhile or good. 

Exercising Free Will

Some drivers seem to believe that so long as they obey all the traffic laws, they should be fine. 

The problem is that they aren't really paying attention to the drivers around them. 

The light turns green, so they go. And even though they do have the right away, they may not have noticed that someone else tried running the red light... and they crash.

That's part of why defensive driving focuses on being aware of the drivers around you, and thinking about what you'll do if someone is about to hit you. (Or so my understanding is. I've never actually taken a course). 

Maybe there's room on the shoulder to swerve right if someone hits a patch of ice and starts veering all over the place. Or maybe there isn't any room, and you need to hit the brakes (or speed up).

All of it requires paying attention to what's going on around you, and deciding how to act. (And yes, sometimes those actions will break the laws of traffic... but if you're avoiding an accident and aren't making things worse by putting other people in danger, is it a problem?)

That's kind of what I meant when I said that people don't exercise free will. I was referring to the almost mindless way that people follow the path laid before them. Where you grew up, everyone goes to college. Or nobody does. 'Everyone' becomes a doctor or a lawyer, or housewife, or mechanic.

It's not that any of those are wrong. It's that I think people should think about their options and consciously choose them, rather than doing what naturally comes next. 

I suppose that's what some of the wisdom traditions talk about when they want us to be mindful. That we should learn to be present, and learn to develop that awareness so that we're doing so at every part of the day. 

I don't know, again... I haven't had any formal schooling on that. (It does sound like a tall order, though. You can spend a lifetime learning to be in the moment and mindful all the time.)

I said yesterday that there were things we could do no matter where we are in life. 

If we choose to. How much of an impact will vary, and it's not just about resources and access...

We all know that front line leaders have the most impact on the people who work for them. A platoon leader or platoon sergeant has a very strong impact on their team.

What's interesting, though, is that although people higher up in the chain of command have a wider reach (a battalion commander or CEO naturally influences far more people), it can get diffused as it filters down. Your immediate boss generally influences you on a day to day basis far more than your CEO (and are often the biggest reason someone quits.)

Which isn't to say that a CEO doesn't have a profound influence. It's just that it comes more from who they choose as their direct reports and what guidance they give. (People always talk about how you need to look two levels up if you want to be promoted. See what your boss and your boss's boss need, and meet that need. But you also have to look two levels down, I think. Otherwise all you see is that someone achieved your goal... and you may not know how they did it. Maybe they did it by forcing everyone to work like crazy. Maybe they're relying on a really good subordinate. How do you know?)

People in staff positions also have influence, for good or bad. Even if the CEO is the person making the decision, how you frame the decision has a huge influence on what course of action they decide.

A good staff officer does their due diligence, of course, and presents a solid analysis of the options available. But... it's not too hard for them to decide that a particular option isn't even worth researching, or to decide that the answers they found couldn't be right and to rework the analysis. (And maybe they're right, and caught an error. And maybe they're wrong, and made the data fit their biases.)

It's interesting how a staff manages their boss. You can tell they're trying to do so when you hear stories about them fighting to make sure the boss seems (or doesn't see) a particular report or story. 

I suppose that's one way gatekeeping happens, but... it's not as simple as saying 'gatekeeping is bad'. After all, you're dealing with people who don't have near enough time in the day for a thorough analysis of all the issues. They need people to help filter out the critical bits. (The real complaint ought to be 'bad gatekeeping', rather than gatekeeping at all.)

I kind of had some other thoughts, but this is good enough for today.

Disturbing

I hadn't realized that Evangelical home schooling, in addition to being wrong in general, flat out undermined our country.

In other news, I want to follow up on yesterday's post, partly because I ended it on a somewhat hopeless note. 

There are things we can do to make a difference, at whatever place in life we find ourselves. 

Not sure I'll get to it today though. We'll see. 

Not Black/White

I really like how this example illustrates the complexities in life. 

On Jewish Space Lasers (Eventually)

The thing about moving a lot is that you realize just how much you create a new routine, and it defines you.

The things you do in that first week or month can easily become your routine. The coffee shop you regularly visit, for example. (someone said moving is the best time to quit smoking, and it makes sense to me. You're changing all your routines and habits anyway, so it's easier to just not add that one.)

And although I think we have an inner self that doesn't easily change with our environs (and helping us become more fully that self is kind of the goal in life), it's true that we are deeply shaped by our routines and the people around us.

That's part of why I had an idle thought, back in my lieutenant days. An idea that could never really be tried.

See, there are good organizations and bad. Good organizations that make good decisions, that people love working for, that come up with great ideas or products and make them reality. And that bring out the best in their people. Promote talent, develop skills, etc. To use what's now a cliché, they have good synergy. The whole is greater than the sum of their parts. 

And then there are toxic organizations, where people dread going to work. Where every decision just seems to make things worse, where the talented get alienated and pushed out and the ones who remain tend to be cynics or locked in because they're afraid of losing benefits. Where the worst people get promoted, and everyone fights to get credit for the good things and avoid blame for the bad. (Clear lines of responsibility are pretty important for holding people accountable, which is probably why organizations like this prefer to fudge who is responsible for what. Makes it easier to avoid blame if everyone - and therefore no one - was involved.) 

My question was... If you slowly transferred all the people on the toxic organization over to the good one... Slowly enough that each individual grows accustomed to the new organization's way of doing things... 

Could you eventually have the exact same people in the good org as had been in the bad? And would the good organization still be high performing? 

I mean, yes. We each bring something unique to the table, and every gain and loss changes an organization. But the history and traditions of a place imbue it with its own character. And if you did the transition slowly enough, how much of that organizational character affect the collection of individuals? 

Command climate is a thing, and not just some buzz words used by the people in charge. Shaping that, deliberately creating it.. That's part of what good leaders do. (That's what they're doing when they say "there are no stupid questions.") 

For all that we can consciously choose to do so, though... Most people aren't really aware of that ability and don't really use it. 

Like, I do believe we have free will. I just think the vast majority of people don't really use it. 

Which is part of why I consider so many things systemically. 

For example... Some time ago I read an article discussing how Wall Street recruits top notch graduates. It was interesting, because the article said most of these kids didn't really want a career on Wall Street. Like a lot of us at that age, many wanted to go out and do great things. Change the world. 

But they got recruited into these (high paying) positions, and then found it hard to leave. Kind of like the 'golden shackles' I've heard ex-military talk about with regards to working in combat zones as a contractor. It pays well, you get a lifestyle that fits your income, but it's hard to make that kind of money anywhere else. 

So you keep doing it. Not so much because it's your passion, but how else can you live in the style you're accustomed to? 

The people who make more money don't generally think of themselves as that wealthy (or so I hear). 

I'm guessing that some of that is because when you're in those circles you also know many people who have far more, and there's a vast difference between a 1%er making around $400,000/yr and a Jeff Bezos making millions. 

The rest of it is the golden shackles. It feels like every couple of years some 1%er writes a (horribly hilarious) article about how they're really not making that much money. Honest! Except they always include details that show how out of touch they are. They'll say - but I spend X amount sending my kids to <horribly expensive private school>. Except for most of us there's absolutely no chance we'd be able to send our kids there. So you choose to spend that money, and you do so expecting it to pay off down the road... As your kid also gets into the colleges we won't, and builds connections with other wealthy individuals that we can't. 

Or they'll talk about how they have to pay for maid service. As if the vast majority of us have maid service! If I've pulled a, long week at work and don't have the energy to clean, I'm sorry... But the house stays dirty. Don't come over unannounced. 

Or they'll talk about how expensive the cost of living is (which is often true. Especially in Silicon Valley or NYC). Except you know what the median salary in New York is? Around $70K. 

That means half of New Yorkers are living off less than that. Cost of living is definitely a factor, but not so much that you can't find somewhere decent for less. (though how much of that is again about networking, connections, and the like? Gotta keep up with the Joneses). 

So the thing of it is that to people like me even the 1%ers have fantastic opportunities I could only wish to have. (There are a lot of things I'd love to do or buy, but yeah.. Let's pay off a few things first. And hope no new disaster happens like my dog getting sick again. The nice new laptop can wait, and maybe some day I'll visit all the BRICS nations, but who knows when that'd happen. And if I didn't have to worry about finances for a while there's other things I would love to try, but whatever. I can't honestly complain, especially when I'm able to work from home during a pandemic.)

Anyways, the article about Wall Street, and those comments about the 1%ers, are all because they highlight the problem. 

Its not that there's some greedy and villainous elite that is trying to turn us all into slaves with no hope of ever making enough money to feel financially secure. (though there do seem to be some who are greedy. And there are bad people across all classes, though the ones with wealth have the ability to do a lot more damage.) 

Really, an evil cabal (whether it's a Jewish company with a space laser, or lizard people, or whatever horrible anti-semitic conspiracy theory these people think of next) would be a lot easier to deal with than the real problem. 

Which is that there's a lot of people shaped by their environment, who just like most of us don't realize how much that is true, and who are also cogs in the machine. 

Just cogs that get paid more, and actually have a better chance of changing that machine if they decided it's worth doing. (Hence a great deal of frustration. They could change the world for the better. They've got the resources and access. And yet... the rich still get richer, the poor get poorer, global climate change is a thing, and over 400,000 Americans have died in a pandemic.)