Trash of the Count's Family, As Promised

 Okay, first of all I have to give a spoiler warning - if you care about spoilers and plan to read the webnovel (or  a translation of it really, since it's Korean) don't read any further.

Trash of the Count's Family is about a man who transmigrates into a minor character in a fantasy story. The character he becomes is a wealthy noble called 'trash' because he's known for getting drunk and breaking things. His name is Cale Henituse, and in the story he gets beat up by the protagonist for saying something awful about a village where everyone was murdered.

What you don't find out until much later is that our character came from an AU of the real world, too. An earthlike world where monsters suddenly appeared and created a bit of an apocalypse. Although that world doesn't have the agencies I mention, the way he acts makes me think of a CIA agent or intel officer who decides to change everything (so he can live a quiet and peaceful life, though he's not doing so well at achieving that).

It's fascinating. Both for the overarching themes (like the one I mentioned before, about good leaders taking care of their people, as well as hope and despair and found family and dragons and other things) and for the story itself. Which is complex and hard to explain.

It also makes me think about, well... politics and how we deal with people. Cale comes to the attention of the crown prince in his kingdom, who becomes one of his strongest allies, and there's quite a bit about how you can use political power to help your kingdom. I rather like it because it portrays the various nobles as... well, people. Some are good, some are bad, some are self-interested. And aside from some real villains most of them create the framework the crown prince and our character operate in. It offers some interesting examples of how to do that for good, as well as bad.

There are things I question about it too, though. The character tends to be very transactional, which I normally say with a very negative connotation. Ofc, that could be because I come from a farming family, even if it's my grandparents generation and not my own. My college class on social trust and cooperation says such families tend to be more cooperative. There's a sense that you have to help each other out, not because you know of any specific benefit for doing so, but because that's just what you do. (and it generally does pay out, because your neighbors may help you harvest your crops during a rough year, or other similar things). 

Really, it's that 'pay it forward' mentality where you try to do lend a helping hand because we all need one at some point. (Like the guy who helped us out back in college when our car broke down.)

That's one of the things citizens like me find disturbing when we hear stories about the rich and powerful. That sense that they always have to ask 'what's in it for me?'. That they keep track of who owes who what.

It, frankly, sounds exhausting. I don't want to have to think about which friends will benefit me, or who will give me a leg up. I just want to spend time with the people I enjoy being around, whether they're going to help me get ahead or not.

But... the way this guy does it isn't all that bad. Some of it actually seems to help. Like a pair of orphaned siblings (Cat people. They can change into cats or look like human kids) that he takes under his wing. He tells them that they have to be useful, but it's almost more like a way of giving them something to be proud of. After all, they'd been kicked out of their tribe and told they were useless, and here's someone who wants them around and has things for them to do. (In age appropriate fashion. He's pretty good at taking care of the people under his wing, and trying not to put young kids into situations over their head.)

You can even see how nice it can be, in the sense that the people he comes to an agreement with are clear about what that agreement is, and what they're getting out of it. It's kind of sad that he doesn't seem to trust more altruistic people, and even finds it suspicious.

He's funny though. Doesn't seem to realize how the people around him grow to care for him, and talks about wanting that 'slacker' lifestyle while continuously putting himself in danger. (you later learn that the 'slacker lifestyle' he wants is basically one where there's world peace so he can freely be a slacker. Like, he's not going to run away from bad things so that he alone is fine... he wants to create a place where everyone is. Which I also relate to rather a lot... )

He reminds me a lot of the whole 'the best leader is smart and lazy', because he knows how to delegate and tends to get the people around him to get things done. Builds a good team. Tries to keep anyone from being put in situations where they feel they need to sacrifice themselves for the greater good.

It's interesting for a number of reasons. For example, at one point he ends up back in his past on earth. Right before some of the worst monster events happen. And you see him use the knowledge and skills he has to build people up to the point where they can handle the worst.

See, in his monster filled Korea people starting getting special abilities. And he makes a point that it's not just about finding the ones best able to fight. Some of those abilities are things like the ability to record everything they see. To watch and remember... an ability he has, and can use to analyze the threat and help come up with a better way of dealing with it. During that time he finds a use for everyone. Fighters. Analysts. Healers. Shields. Communication (some abilities let someone act like a megaphone, which he uses to share information during the fight.)

There's some parts where the translations are rough, and I really hope it gets popular enough to get a more professional translation. Also would love to see it animated. 

I may or may not go into more detail here. I started reading it because some friends on discord got hooked, and I'll probably do more character analysis and scenario specific discussions there. But I encourage anyone who thinks they'd like it to go ahead and pick it up.

Covid Update

 Over 370K new covid cases yesterday, and almost 500K today. Even though I know, from Denmark and other highly vaccinated countries, that the death rate in a week or two won't be as bad as it was before the vaccines it's still pretty nuts.

Fuck every single person responsible for helping create this mess.

Every one that is willing to gain political power through the pain and suffering of our citizens deserves to lose any of the political power they have. They don't deserve it.

There's also the disturbing lack of snow, even though we're now heading to the end of the year...

Ah well, hopefully there's enough others that feel the way I do to make a difference. 

To get back to harmless escapism... this is part of what I like about Trash of the Count's Family. Over and over we see powerful people willing to let their citizens suffer, and it's obvious they're the villains of the piece.

I'll probably write some more on that shortly. I've kind of been promising to, but that's one of the ongoing themes that I rather liked about it.

Trash of the Count's Family

I binge read about 700-some chapters of Trash of the Count's Family in the past week, aside from visiting the family for Christmas.

I'll probably write something more about it, but I've got to handle the shift handover call and if I really get into writing I'll lose track of time. 

Anyways, here's one of the quotes that really resonated with me:

"Compromise against power to a reasonable degree, accept irrationality to a reasonable degree. At the same time, live as I please within limits." 

I should probably add this is right before he mentions a rather intelligent plot for addressing someone's abuse of power. 

Update

The world is still pretty nuts right now, but there doesn't seem much to do beyond what I'm already doing.

So I got sucked into reading a Korean webnovel, Trash of the Count's Family, and I'm sure I'll be posting some thoughts and reactions to it.

Probably after the holidays though. 

Also

Wondering why we almost seem to want an apocalypse. 

And also thought about how the cover up truly is worse than the crime. Or rather, I hate how once someone has made one bad decision (like the antivax BS) they often double down. Like now they think if they admit they were wrong it'll be the end of everything, so rather than show they actually care about American lives and doing the right thing, they double down on lies and craziness (thereby proving they really don't deserve to have power. For those paying attention to that sort of thing. Kind of makes the issue as world ending as they were afraid of, but more because they just can't change course than because of the initial mistake).

One of my commanders had a cute little anecdote that probably isn't scientifically accurate. About how lions hunt, and how the lion roaring is trying to scare you into the paws of the rest of the pride, and how it's better to face the roar.

Seems somehow pathetic that so called 'leaders' don't understand that, and will do everything they can to avoid responsibility and accountability.

Rot. I don't know how we went from "the buck stops here" to "I don't take responsibility at all" in less than a century... But the fact that people still seem to consider the latter a viable leader is... Disgusting. 

For Discussion

I've been thinking about posting something to try and capture this feeling, but it hasn't come together yet.

It just feels like all the negative consequences of bad decisions over the past few decades are growing blatantly obvious, while the same forces that prevented us from doing anything about it back then are trying to take over and prevent us from doing anything. Still.

Even now. 

I just don't know which part of the whole thing I wanted to focus on. Like, our biases and the frustrating way people fool themselves into believing things that just aren't so?

The arrogance behind people who made up their minds about an issue forty years ago - and then never revisited it. Never considered that hey, maybe they were wrong.

The shortsighted selfishness and greed that has people who benefited from the current system block any attempts to make it better. 

Or the way these shortsighted fools are probably not going to suffer the consequences of their actions. How they'll flit off to some survival bunker in New Zealand, or use their money to recover from tornadoes or hurricanes or floods or fires. 

They've successfully blocked all efforts at fixing major problems, and now we all have to suffer for their idiocy, and nothing quite captures the sense of helpless rage when you realize that. 

But what's the use? We've got powerful people so lost to any sense or reason that they made a fucking powerpoint that goes against everything our system stands for, and apparently none of the people who saw it realized - not just that it was a bad idea, but that it was potentially illegal. Seditionist, treasonous, I'll let lawyers sort out the correct legal terms, but they apparently didn't see what's wrong with it. At all.

What can you do when that many people have lost their moral compass?

When the rot is that widespread? 

Surprisingly Good Article

Stumbled across this and just wanted to jot it down here. 

Addendum

Mulled over a few more things, but work starts soon so I'm not sure when I'll come back to it. (started thinking about operations, and how some of the cabinets aren't naturally forced to work together to pull off a specific operation the way that unit deployments and field exercises force a military staff to.)

Regardless of whether I follow up on that, I found myself thinking of Woodrow Wilson's seminal piece on public administration.

Its interesting how he disliked monarchists, and felt that "In such governments administration has been organized to subserve the general weal with the simplicity and effectiveness vouchsafed only to the undertakings of a single will. . . ."

And basically argued that we can learn to use their better organized processes while Americanizing them and making them serve the public interest.

NSC and Cabinet Talk, Cont.

Been mulling it over a bit more and I suppose I'll ramble a bit, not sure I'll get done before I have to go somewhere.

I talked about line units and staff, and the federal government doesn't quite map on to that. 

In the military... Well, there's a reason they say good generals talk about logistics, logistics, logistics. 

Yes, we need our combat arms. Our shooters. Infantry, cavalry. The king of battle (artillery). I'm mostly talking army here but also jet fighters and battleships and the like. But as that book about the eastern front showed rather horrifically, your soldiers - no matter how brave - won't be able to fight well if they're starving. Or don't have bullets. Or their tanks get broken and they don't have the equipment to repair it. The classic 'beans and bullets' 

Which is why a very, very, very large portion of our armed forces are really support for the shooters.

Most of the line units are the shooters. And then there's all sorts of bureaucracy tied up with assigning the right type of support (maintenance, engineers, finance, etc).

Military intelligence, for example, doesn't have that many platoons and battalions and the like. Most of them are assigned staff positions with the line units rather than forming a unit of their own. Many officers actually start in another branch, where they get to be a platoon leader as part of the typical officer pipeline, before changing branches. (I requested my transfer from Air Defense, but many did something similar as part of the plan.)

The maneuver units have some pretty predictable planning requirements, hence the staff titles. S1 for personnel. S2 for intelligence. S3 for operations. S4 for supply. S6 for communication. And so on and so forth (J1, J2, etc at the joint level, but the same breakdown. They may have other numbers since they may require things at that level that a battalion or brigade don't.)

So there's the line units, and then there's all the stuff tied up with getting them in the right place at the right time with the right equipment and training and resources to succeed. 

Now, with the federal government we don't generally have that sort of thing. Well, other than the armed forces themselves. The rest of the federal government is not tied up with outfitting and mobilizing units. 

You could maybe say FEMA are like that, though iirc it's more like deploying a staff to help organize local resources on the ground. With some logistics thrown in for federal resources. 

The executive branch is supposed to execute, that is make the legislation passed by Congress actually happen. But quite a bit of that is the military, ofc, or the paperwork involved in funding medicare or social security. Or paying for the secret service or IRS. Or managing national parks. 

Its not really operations. 

Well, and then there's the State Department, which definitely doesn't fit any of the stuff I just described. It has bureaucracy ofc. Plenty of it. And there are diplomats 'deployed' for key negotiations (could we call a deployment of diplomats a bale? Since some turtles live in swamps, so they'd fit right in to the Foggy Bottom?)

I digress. The state department reflects the nation as a whole. Embassies are considered the territory of their government after all. So even though there's lots of staff functions, they're really more like the face we present to the rest of the world. And they should have a coherent foreign policy that reflects our collective goals. ('should' is carrying a lot of weight there).

So, in that sense the whole line unit/staff distinction doesn't really fit.

However. We do have a cabinet, with secretaries ostensibly serving the president (who should reflect our collective will, and is putting into practice the wishes we agreed enough on to actually legislate).

Tbh, I kind of thought the NSC was a little strange when I heard about it. It seemed like a way of working around the cabinets rather than fixing them. It seemed to work well enough for Harry Truman, but it also seems to have done what almost any organization does when given a chance.. Grow larger and take on more duties. I understand a small core of special advisors that can help coordinate across cabinets, but why weren't the cabinet heads able to do that themselves?

That's mostly idle rambling on my part though. I am not an expert on how things work in DC, so maybe I just don't understand what their proper roles are.

Anyways. According to the White House website there are 15 executive departments. Headed by the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, and the Attorney General.

They won't map onto military staff functions, but make sense for things a nation should worry about: defense, the economy, food, trade, energy, finances. And quite a bit that overlaps with those (ie transportation actually helps trade and the economy, but is specialized enough to be its own thing. Labor and education are similar.)

I suppose I need to clarify - ultimately all of this is about taking care of the American people and serving our collective interests. A good economy generally does that, though as economic critiques of common measurements show its not always one and the same. Also, if too many of the benefits of that economy go to the 1%, then it doesn't actually reflect our collective well being. But it used to be a fairly decent way of measuring such things. (people inevitably start playing to the metrics so they might not any more. But you can get an economist to go into that in greater detail).

So the economy matters for two reasons - as a rough measurement for how well we're doing, and because a strong economy is important for national security. That goes back to the beans and bullets... You can have ships and planes and tanks and trucks, but those things get destroyed rather quickly in a war. To sustain and last, you need an economy that can continue to build said ships and tanks and planes. As well as the food to keep feeding your troops, and the people who are making those ships and tanks and planes.

That's part of why I keep saying national security is very broad. You have to have the resources, plus the ability to sustain your efforts. Plus a population educated enough, in all the right ways. Not just for military might, but for the type of economy that can support it. And they have to be healthy enough to do so. (not that these aren't worthy goals in their own right, and I care about education etc for the public goods they provide us in peacetime. Just... They also are extremely important if we ever get into a sustained total war. Same thing for racial tension. An army could fall apart pretty quick if you're forces hate each other. Got to nip that racism shit in the bud or you never know when your forces might fall apart. Seriously, it's very frustrating that people in power don't seem to see white supremacy for the serious threat it is). 

I'm digressing again though, and I'll probably have to leave soon. 

15 executive departments that, for better or worse, are supposed to help implement our laws and the various things we've collectively decided are important. Even if certain people in power think they know better, and actively sabotage them. 

Maybe they need a department of operations to coordinate their efforts. Maybe that's what the NSC essentially has become. 

I get the impression, though, that they're all a tangled hodgepodge of a mess that's grown in fits and starts over our nation's history. (with a large part of the population that resents that entirely, and hinders any effort at making it work). 

NSC and Cabinet talk

I thought this was a fascinating take, partly because of my own misconceptions.

I know a bit about the National Security Council - why it was created and the purpose it serves. The disconnect with execution here makes perfect sense though, because if the NSC did that then what's the point of the president's cabinet? The Secretary of State and the like?

I had thought that a president's cabinet acting like the staff in our military chain of command. Ie each was responsible for their area of expertise, but they met regularly (under the commander or his executive officer in the military, and if not them then the S3 or J3 as the head of operations) and they'd basically get all the different parts working together.

But the article indicates that cabinets are more isolated than I thought, probably because they're scared of looking weak or incompetent and don't want to kick things up to the president, which... Idk. Seems foolish, but we're tending to deal with giant egos at that level so whatever. Seems presidents don't want to spend all their time managing that, and I'm not sure about the xo or s3 equivalent. The VP historically is actually a token role (used to be it was the opposing candidate from the other party even, so they're not really the XO. And a president's Chief of Staff is more about managing the president's staff (kind of a 'duh' statement), but it's more like the guy who manages their household rather than cabinet wrangler and alter ego for managing the entire business of executing what Congress has legislated.

They keep trying to make these 'czars' for interagency coordination, but really maybe they just need a head cabinet wrangler.

Then again, the executive branch is not truly like a military chain of command. What with congressional oversight, political appointees from other parties, and the bureaucrats who run things while political appointees come and go, it's a sprawling bureaucratic nightmare where even the person who supposedly commands it can't always make things happen like they want.

Edited to ramble a bit more: on second thought, a battalion or brigade or division commander has his/her staff, and executive officer... And then the subordinate units (companies, battalions, etc) headed by their respective commanders. And the cabinet secretaries may be more like those commanders...

That doesn't sound right though. The Department of State supports the president more like staff officers do then like a line officer in charge of combat troops. 

Its just that they serve a different enough purpose from the military that it's not exactly a purely staff situation either. 

Still wouldn't hurt to have the equivalent of a good XO though. 

If All Your Friends Jump Off a Cliff...

I don't know if this is just a sign of the times, or it's some nasty attempt at manipulating teenagers... But these TikTok challenges are disturbing.

It's probably the former, it's just all the media manipulation these days makes me want someone to at least look at the possibility.

I had to pick Little up from school yesterday because there were 10+ fights. I heard about some of the other challenges mentioned in the article too. (She said the fights might have been a challenge). 

Where Is The Light?

 

My friend of over 25 years is starting hospice care. She's been dealing with cancer for the past couple of years, and it's metastasized. I was able to visit her at the beginning of November, and we watched Anna and the Apocalypse (in addition to a whole bunch of other movies). And this song...

She told me the filmmaker behind it was battling cancer too, and basically had no fucks left to give. This song is a mood. 

And a rather fitting one, I think. Not just because of my friend's situation. I think back to where we were a year ago, and I do think things are better now. Trump lost the election, he's no longer president, and we're not dealing with his madness on top of everything else.

And yet...

And yet, just as many people said, Trump was more a symptom of the problem than the problem itself. We're still struggling, far more than I had hoped or wanted, to make the changes we need.

I find myself thinking about various projects I've worked on. Like the one in Iraq, where we were trying to improve our biometric collection processes. When a later class discussed change management (and how you needed support from people at the top) it resonated... because I have seen how hard it is to do anything when you don't have the support you need.

I've seen the reverse as well. At my current company there seems a decent amount of upper level support for change, but the people themselves seem to be resisting it. You can see it in how people just sort of stop joining meetings, or get busy with other things and say they can't participate any more.

Some days I wonder what it would be like, to be part of a success story. Changes with the support they need, both at the top and bottom. You'll never have everyone on board, of course. Change management is probably one of the hardest things any organization can do, and any change will benefit some and harm others. But... having wise leadership pushing the right changes, doing so in a way that persuades people to get on board with it, leading to an organization that's doing things right.

It sounds almost magical, actually. 

I try not to be too cynical and negative, but I think a certain amount of skepticism is realistic. Because far too often the changes are only cosmetic. (Like all the jokes in the military about how someone renamed a project or organization, just to get a bullet point for their evaluation report. Or the way the receiving department changed the layout on their floor, twice at least, both times supposedly part of process improvement. Lean six sigma stuff. Except if it was so efficient the first time, why did it need changed a second time?)

Not that those things are wrong, or bad. I've read about them, and other industry buzz words (like SRE for tech now). But implementing them effectively often requires a deeper level of change that I just don't think most organizations are truly willing to do. Which means people do something cosmetic that they can put on an evaluation, without actually changing much of anything. (Again, change management is hard, so that's not meant as an insult.)

 I suppose that's part of why I'm so interested in systems, and organizational structures. Most people are average. It's kind of the definition of 'average' actually, and a good system will ensure that the important things get done. Any officer or soldier in their proper position can do the paperwork needed to make sure we have the supplies and equipment we need. Battalions have staffs that ensure proper training is done. And most of it doesn't require true excellence (though of course everyone wants it, and tries to develop it).

Nations are also organizations, and the rise and fall of nations is an ongoing fascination of mine. Why do some start to stagnate and fall? Why do some blossom and grow? Is the cycle truly inevitable? How do you stop or change it? 

I read a fascinating history on the Mongols, I can't remember which book... but one of their subsequent empires seemed to be declining, until a really impressive leader took charge and helped restore it for another hundred years or so. 

I like to think I have a good sense of what's needed, but... well.

Doesn't everybody? Isn't that part of the problem? All the companies Jim Collins wrote about in How the Mighty Fall wanted to succeed after all. And the ones who made the decisions leading to decline didn't think that was what they were doing. 

The only real way to know is to see what happens afterwards, at which point it's generally too late to change anything.

The point of that is that regardless of whether I know what I'm talking about or not, it doesn't really matter if the people who have the ability to change things disagree. 

And that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? I think we're headed in a rather terrible direction, but the forces pushing us that way seem far too powerful. I'll still do what I can, most especially by voting, but sometimes I get the sinking feeling that it just isn't going to be enough. 

Climate change is one example of the problem. It's December already, and although I appreciate not being cold... this weather is ridiculous for this time of year. But good luck doing anything about it. 

Just like there is apparently nothing we can do about school shootings.

Or growing wealth inequality.

Or the way most Americans support decriminalization, if not outright legalization, of marijuana.

Or the disastrous coronavirus response.

The forces resisting change seem far too powerful, and the end result is utterly crappy. For everyone.

I'm not saying it's hopeless, necessarily. It's just that the consequences of failing seem worse than ever. There's a very narrow path to a happy ending. (I thought about going into more detail about why these things are so terrible, or what a 'happy ending' entails... but honestly if you don't already understand why these things are a problem it would take a LOT of typing to lay out the arguments. I think I'll keep this post short and sweet instead.)

We've got a lot of work to do.