Rambling On About Stuff

I am committing to spending at least a little bit of time every weekend doing two things: learning more about infosec/malware/etc and applying to at least one position. 

It has been... harder than I expected. Some of that's inevitable (my Little from Big Brothers Big Sisters wanted to do something last weekend, for example) and some of it... I wonder if it's my own personal hangups?

Like, one of my biggest worries/fears is that I sabotage myself. I think mostly because that's the one thing I  can control. Like, I can't make other people decide to hire me or pay me for whatever. Much though I'd like to, I don't get to control other people that way.

And actually, I don't want to. I mean, I joke about it. Mostly because every time I think about something I'd like to do (i.e. replacing my roof, which is probably due soon. Or really getting a second story added on, which would be even more awesome. But let's be real here. Or helping out my brother during his time of need. Or fixing up the yard. Or going to Gambia if Little's friend doesn't make it back when she's supposed to. Or traveling the world, or looking into in vitro fertilization or something and having a kid) there's always that nagging worry about how I'm going to pay for it. Really, I don't need a million dollars... but the freedom to do whatever I want without some level of stress or worry about the cost would be so liberating.

But I don't actually want control people. Really, it's almost the opposite of that.

Ironic for a former officer in the Army, supervisor, etc. I know. But... I really don't like having people hanging around on me.

Even as a child... one of my brothers and I fought All. The. Time. And I remember our parents musing about why and what happened and all, and they talked about how when we were little my brother used to follow me everywhere.

And I was like 'that would be annoying, I don't remember that at all but I would probably be irritated if someone was following me around all the time.'

Reminds me of the old saying that the best leaders are 'smart but lazy'. I know there might not be an obvious connection there, bear with me.

It's because I don't want people following me around that I would want to lead in such a way that they don't need me. They shouldn't need me telling them what to do, shouldn't need me hovering over them  making sure they do what they're supposed to do. Shouldn't need me to be the one telling them something needs to be done.

So, yeah, my leadership style is mostly 'set expectations, train, and build up their independent decision making so they can see what needs to be done and just do it.'  

That last is the trickiest bit, because you're trying to teach judgment. Decision making. How to think and what to consider when making a decision. 

Throw in a hefty dose of 'build up confidence if they need it' or 'temper their overconfidence' and eventually let them fly on their own.

Heh.

My first tattoo was of a mountain lion. Again, bear with me. It's related.

I was in college musing about tattoos, thinking that there was nothing I could think of that I wanted to permanently ink it on my skin. But then I remembered back during my freshman year of high school, the last time I did cross country... and they were coming up with nicknames for the people on the team. And for some reason mine was puma. (I think.)

So I decided I wanted a mountain lion/puma/cougar tattoo. Went to a tattoo artist, and realized that the very clear visual I had in my head was not so easily translated into something the artist understood. It wasn't one of the fairly standard tattoos you could choose from a book. And he basically asked me to find a picture of what I wanted and bring it in.

Cue my going to a library and reading up on mountain lions, trying to find a picture that matched what I had thought was a fairly standard image in my head.

Anyways. Did you know mountain lions are very versatile? They live in mountains, sure. But also deserts and forests and pretty much anywhere there are deer.

Also, they're generally loners. I mean, not entirely... they obviously meet up to have children, and there was a recent article saying they're more social than we used to think.

The more I read about them the more it seemed to fit. I mean, I am social. Really.

Just... not as much as some? Idk, I have friends... but most of my friends are spread out all over the states. And it's not like we call each other up to chat all the time.

Yet when we do talk, we're generally happy to hear from each other and are able to pick right back up without any problem.

Anyways. I started typing this while waiting for some updates to install. That's finished, so now it's time to restart my computer and then try to work on my resume. 

Like I said... two things I want to work on every weekend. Time to start on one of them.

Edited to add: I'm perfectly fine with letting someone else be in charge, as long as they're reasonably competent (or at a minimum competent enough that it's better than the infighting that comes from challenging them)

I get irritated when they're incompetent, because then they either need to step aside gracefully or deal with the inevitable infighting that comes when they try to hold on to a position they aren't doing right.

I do think sometimes that status (and fear of losing it) makes people obstacles to that. Because ofc they won't admit they're not doing a good job, and won't get out of the way. Not if it means losing the perks they're accustomed to. 

MacKenzie Scott

I really liked her statement on how they're choosing charities to donate to.

Management Ramblings

While many of the posts here don't necessarily understand what managers do, there's a lot of truth to their complaints.

Especially a) managers not knowing the basic tasks the people they manage do (I got trained in everything my employees did at my last job. I didn't generally have to drive a fork truck or order picker, but on really busy days I was definitely out there in the tunnels picking parts for orders 

b) the need to manage up. Which sucks in that we'd all like to respect and trust the people we report to - who often, yes, make more money - but that's just not the way it is. If I'm a bit skeptical of the ultra wealthy thinking they deserve orders of magnitude more for their skills, it's mostly because in my experience people up the chain of command are generally neutral to bad. They're sometimes more hindrances and obstacles then help, and the ones that are truly amazing are a treas and a rarity. I consider it kind of a compliment if a manager is just 'alright'. And wow, that sounds even worse when I type it out. Like, being 'alright' is fine. There really are good reasons these people make the big bucks, and it's a tough job to do right. It's just kind of annoying that mediocre and bad ones get paid about the same and get credit similar to what the ones who actually do a good job do. Also that the system seems to reward bad and mediocre business people, and even helps protect them from the consequences of their actions. Like... You may not be a horrible waste of space, but when lots of people are one paycheck away from disaster and deal with uncertainty and job loss all the time, I fail to see why your mediocrity deserves more security. Either make everyone have molder consequences, or make everyone deal with high risk and uncertainty... I have my personal preferences, but the real problem is the double standard. (and the way their screw ups affect ordinary people even more. Like the bailouts.  I get why economists and politicians felt it was needed, and far too many people suffer during times of economic uncertainty... So I'd rather we prevent that then not. But it's really messed up that it's structured that way. That's also part of why I'm not so much of a fan of revolution and boogaloo boys and the folks trying to create chaos for political gain. Did they not realize that the main theme in Hunger Games, Game of Thrones, etc is that a lot of people suffer? Many of them innocent? And most often the ordinary people who don't have resources to but protection. Using such a strategy to gain power is pretty much proof you don't deserve it, since you're a pretty shitty shepherd or steward. Same, btw, for coronavirus and vaccines and public health. If you want to act a fool, and you're the only one who suffers the consequences, then that's your business. But when your foolishness means other people suffer the consequences, that's a problem.

Also c) meetings, updates, and 'keeping the boss informed' can sometimes get in the way of doing what has to be done. Like when we were busy and I was picking parts? That was partly because we're generally able to cover for each other in a pinch, so some of the other supervisors and coordinators were able to track our progress and make decisions on how to shift where people were working. Yes, the chain of command needs to be kept in the loop, but sometimes the hardest part of being a manager is being patient and letting your people do their jobs.

This, btw, relates back a bit to the 'don't always understand what managers do' piece. Because if I've ensured my people have the training and resources they need, then they can generally do the work without my hovering. But there's actually quite a bit of work involved in that, it's just done weeks/months/years before.

Its making time to cross train when things seem slow, or placing the orders for ammunition and equipment a month earlier, or giving timely feedback on performance issues, or any number of little things. People don't necessarily see good management at work, but the definitely feel it's absence. 

Political Strategy

Stumbled on this and I wonder if it's true.

Living in a bubble and not having a good grasp on the full situation are perennial problems. Hence consultants in the first place, and why there's so much buzz when a politician truly seems to understand the common American. (and so much dismay when they use that knowledge to bring out the worst in everyone.) 

Gender Stuff

I liked this, but I don't think it told me much I didn't already know.

And on the one hand, I want to signal boost it for the people who don't.. But on the other hand, it seems almost impossible for anyone not to know these things unless they don't want to.

By which I mean that it's a lot easier to deny you have privilege (and whine about people claiming you have something you don't) than it is to actually look at the research, or listen to someone like this. Or even (if you don't want to believe a transgender woman) look at the story of the man who accidentally sent an email from his female employee's account, and saw enough of a difference in behavior that he decided to try working as her for an entire week.

It's like... The truth is out there. The real truth, not the stuff that let's you claim you're the one who's really the victim. It's out there, if you really want to know.

But it often challenges what you want to believe, and you have to care more about learning the truth than feeling comfortable. 

The Struggle

I've got a jumble of thoughts to sort out, and it's tied to the following: Philip II, current politics, and the TV show Word of Honor (now on Netflix).

Let me think about how to order my thoughts...

I started watching Word of Honor because the people I've come in contact with through The Untamed fandom have already watched it. It's another Chinese drama, though it has less of the fantasy aspects of The Untamed. I'd been seeing gifs for a while and was somewhat interested, so when it appeared on Netflix over the long weekend I pretty much had to start watching. (Now if only Netflix could get Nirvana in Fire.)

I won't go into too much about it here (I'll probably right something more once I've finished it), but there was a moment with one of the villains that I wanted to discuss.

He's basically gained power through disreputable and immoral means, and he was talking about his ambitions and all the great things he was going to do...

And the thing of it is, people like that are always sure that they will. That they're going to bring in a 'golden age', or make their nation/clan/family/tribe the best.

And yet the methods they chose contained the seeds of their own destruction. (yes, it's a bit cliché. But it's a cliché because there's truth in it.)

They want to do all those fantastical things, but they made enemies along the way and face opposition... Often so much so that they grow angry and resentful over it. (I think I heard Trump make a statement along these lines. They never see their own role in creating the opposition that prevents from doing all those things they imagine will be good. Related to this... They take people who try bringing a reality check, try giving honest feedback and info necessary for actually making a plan to reach those goals as threats and obstacles to get around. They can't distinguish from feedback that helps actually turn their goals into reality from the opposition they blame for blocking those goals).

Its like... How you get to your goal is as important as the goal itself, and some tactics are ultimately self defeating. 

This is where I lump all the patronizing 'I know what's best, and I will force you all to do it my way' stuff. It's often the underlying belief for an authoritarian leader, which is why the ideology and goal is often not as important when describing them. (Stalin, Mao, Hitler.. Goals and ideologies may differ, but the know-it-all attitude that sees dissent as a threat is similar. Take that with a grain of salt, as I haven't done a serious case study comparing all three. But it'd be interesting to contrast the three of them with leaders like George Washington.) 

The tie in with Philip II is this... Philip II was a Hapsburg ruler primarily known for ruling Spain in the late 1500s. He saw himself as the defender of Catholic Europe and wasted a lot of resources trying to keep the Netherlands from going Protestant. (Life was very different back then in terms of nationalism and the Hapsburgs married so much European nobility that they controlled territory in a wide variety of places now considered different countries. Also, i am not sure how much self-interest vs devout faith played a role in the religious wars that devastated Europe back then - and ultimately convinced our Founders of the importance of separating church and state - but Philip II was quite devout and shows that it wasn't entirely above profit and self-interest. What was it someone said? When self interest and ideology align there's a greater chance of action than when only one or the other is involved? Makes sense, and is probably why everyone tries so hard to find a moral justification for the things they want to do.) 

Anyways. As people probably know, the Netherlands are not Catholic, and are definitely not part of Spain anymore, so Philip II ultimately failed. He was seen as ruling at the height of Spanish power, but one could argue that his persistent belief that God wanted him to take action against Protestants (and the Ottoman Empire) were a factor in his squandering the resources he had and ultimately led to the decline of the Spanish Empire. (again, go find an actual historian who can talk with more depth and detail and take my statement with a grain of salt). 

This exemplifies some of my underlying beliefs, and the reasoning thereof. Did God want Europe to stay Catholic? Or become Protestant? I don't really know, and I don't think any of us really knows. But I do think He cares thinks that disrespecting people's free will and forcing them to convert to one religion or another is far more of a problem than whether they believe in transubstantiation or not. And that the 'winners', if you can call any of them that, were the ones that learned to tolerate multiple religions. (it's part of why current politics are so frustrating. Our Founding Fathers didn't want to get involved in any way, shape, or form with the bloody religious wars in Europe and created the First Amendment - as the first amendment - to try to avoid all that. And now we have ignorant fools trying to justify a theocracy and claim its what our founding fathers would have wanted. Haven't enough people died over this stupidity?  Hell, even Mohammad said there should be no compulsion in religion. What is so freaking hard to understand about that?!? Forcing and compelling people to do what you think God wants us more of an insult to God than the sins you think you are saving them from.) 

I don't really care how many Bibles they thump or crosses they show. When they try forcing everyone to follow their religious beliefs they are NOT speaking with or for God in any way, shape, or form. 

And no matter how much they think they'll do good things if they had power, no matter how much they justify funding liars and spreading disinfo, they'll never do the great things they envision. 

If they want to bring more people to God, or build a kingdom of God, or all those religious ideals... It won't be by imposing it from above, but by helping create the type of systems that help people learn to come to it on their own. (sort of like the concept of 'inner jihad', or rather learning how to support people in their own inner jihad). 

Spreading lies and hatred takes people further away from that. It's manipulative and makes people less of themselves, and I do not care what sort of justifications the people using such tactics have. They are wrong. 

Argh

What will it take for these losers to accept defeat, anyway?

I use Facebook as sort of a barometer for what actually makes it out to the public (versus what everyone who obsesses over the news is talking about, much of which barely registers with the general public) and so far I'm not seeing a lot about Flynn's rather treasonous suggestion that something like the Myanmar coup (which he later walked back. I can't believe I actually served under him in Huachuca, because yeesh).

I'm also not seeing much chatter about Trump's idiotic claim that he'd be reinstated... Which is kind of reassuring because I don't think they have the numbers for whatever asinine stunt they try next. But it sure sounds like they'll still try.

Also, despite that.. I did see Trump 2024 flags flying when I visited the fam in Indiana, and I'm sure they're out here as well. The '2024' at least means they're still thinking he'll run again in the next presidential election, so he sti has far more support than I'd like. But not, I think, widespread support for anything beyond our normal political process. (it's there, I just think it's a smaller fraction of his support).

Also seeing a few memes on fb in support of him, but again... Not in support of something outside another election. And really it's remarkably quiet (though that can also just be that it's not an election year, and people are tired of it. Quiet doesn't mean that the sentiment isn't there).

Its all anecdotal, so take it for what it's worth. And given that these #$&$# still seem to be pouring money into their efforts at overturning the election (I hope they waste away their entire fortunes with nothing to show for it... Seriously? Why are they actively making the world worse?  How do they justify it to themselves? Is it 'the ends justifies the means' BS where they think God is on their side? Are they unable to separate their own self interest from what's best for the nation? Or are they really just short-sighted, greedy, and self-serving?)

Anyways. I wish I never had to hear from these fools again. Alas, they apparently won't go quietly.