Disturbing

I heard about some rich moron (I read his interview, and the guy believes a lot of bullshit) funding the South Dakota National Guard to go to the Mexican border, and that raises a lot of issues in and of itself. (Like - can anybody with enough money hire them out? Are they now acting like a private mercenary force? Wtf?!?)

But this Twitter thread indicates other governors are doing the same. Though perhaps not with funding by wealthy fools?

I haven't been able to confirm all the states mentioned in the thread, though a quick search did show Arizona was doing the same. (To the Arizona border? Or to Texas? And I'm assuming the SD guard is going to Texas)

Coincidentally enough, Trump is at the border now.

Anyways, although I have a hard time imagining the Guard would go along with anything too foolish (many of the members served on active duty before joining the Guard, and even though the National Guard reports to the governor they're generally patriotic and loyal to the US as a whole) it almost sounds like the kind of bone headed plan we've seen from these morons all along, in that they might, possibly, think that they can build their own army and are foolish enough to think the guardsmembers will blindly follow orders to fight the federal government. 

Sociocultural Differences

I kept seeing this on Twitter today, so I guess I'll post some thoughts.

It's one of those AITA things, where a man and his family invited his girlfriend on a nice vacation, but he makes a lot more than she does. Since they split all costs 50/50, it meant she took a second job and skipped some expensive meals in order to participate.

You can see the comments on the thread above in order to get a sense of how people are reacting.

As for me... The first thing I wanted to say was about what 'fairness' is.

Or rather, I heard a great analogy somewhere that described how people chose to divide a cake. And you can say 'slice it evenly so everyone gets a piece' and call that fair.

But you can also say 'the person the cake is for gets a larger slice, and everyone else splits the rest', and isn't that fair too?

Or what about 'the person who made the cake gets to decide who gets it'

Or 'the immediate family of the guest of honor each get a full slice, and the rest get smaller slices'.

Like, while I do think there's some abstract notion of 'fair', it's often not as simple as 50/50.

Hell, the Bible even had a story of a woman who gave everything she had. And it wasn't as much, numerically. But it was a far greater sacrifice than the fraction of their wealth the rich put in.

But leaving aside what is 'fair', and all the nuances the thread in the link got into over courtesy to an invited guest, or what's expected between a boyfriend and a girlfriend, or (again) the callousness and utter lack of empathy, I wanted to talk about a couple of other things.

First, the concept of a team. Yes, I was annoyed as a child at having to pick up after my brothers. 'it's not fair' (there's that word again), 'it's their mess, they should pick up after themselves'. And I won't necessarily say I was wrong, so much as that Dad had a point too..

Which is that teams (and family) aren't necessarily about everyone doing 'their fair share'. It's about the team, as a whole, getting it done. And sometimes one person can't do as much... And others pick up the slack. Who it is can change (especially if someone catches the flu, or is in the middle of finals, or something else that's temporary). Sometimes it might not be temporary at all, like with multiple sclerosis.

In that sense, focusing on 'fair' is destructive to 'family'.

My parents had a joint account. I think mostly it was all a joint account? Idk, maybe they also each had a personal account with a monthly stipend or something. For the things you want for just you. Each couple has to come up with an agreement their okay with, and money is one of the biggest things couples fight over so I would hope they're both okay with whatever they agree on.

But if you care more about 'my partner, teammate, life mate, spouse' paying 50/50 than having them around... And if you'd honestly rather eat dinner without them than help out...

Then yeah, probably for the best if you break up now.

The poster seems to think he deserves 'better', ie a girl as rich as he is. Which cue eye roll, whatever. This will sound snarky but I mean it sincerely...

He clearly values his money more than having this girl around.

Sure, they probably should have talked about things ahead of time. Or maybe she should have said something when she was skipping meals (though outsiders only see a fraction of what's going on in a relationship, so Idk what else she might have been picking up on) but at the end of the day if you want to do something and the other person can't afford to do it... There's only a couple of possibilities.

a) Don't do the thing

b) Do it without the person

c) Help out with the costs, however much you're comfortable doing. (If it's not enough to cover their financial gap then you're pretty much back at a or b)

Obviously, part of the reaction in the thread is because most of us, if we had the resources and cared about someone, would choose c.

What else are you going to do with that money anyway? And isn't life kind of lonely and sad without the friends and family you care about? As Neil Diamond said 'Money talks, but it can't sing and dance and it don't walk'.

The only reason I could think of for choosing money over a real, live, person (absence scarcity, and in this situation presuming you actually like the person)...

Scratch that. With those conditions I would choose the person 100% of the time.

And maybe I'll never be a billionaire, but I can't help thinking I'm probably doing better regardless. 

Ramblings on Meritocracy, Elitism, and I Don't Know What Else to Call This

I think there's a point I want to make, but I've got such disconnected thoughts floating through my head that I can't really get at it, so I'll just try blogging and see what comes out.

There are certain ideas that I've accepted at such a basic level that I don't even think about how to defend them. For example, that white supremacy is bad. That nepotism is bad. That meritocracy is good, if we actually had one. Though we probably should focus less on status and rewards and perks and more on what the jobs actually entail. (i.e. someone who is terrible at being a CEO or some other high status job will cling to it because they don't want to lose all the perks that come with it, even if they're actually terrible at their job. It makes them obstacles and hindrances... and I can't imagine they're actually happy with where they're at. People talk about how 'not everyone needs to go to college' and how trade schools are an excellent option. And I agree. But I don't think it'll matter so much until the wealthy and powerful show they're content to let their children go to a trade school rather than some Ivy League somewhere.  Why isn't Ivanka Trump or Chelsea Clinton or Hunter Biden or the Bush twins becoming plumbers or electricians?)

So anyways, let me take this from the top.

First. Talent is everywhere. 

I mean, it's hard to define 'talent' in the first place, and there's an element of access and development involved (i.e. someone who has never done gymnastics is not going to be the next Simone Biles, but they might have the capability to be that if they had the access and training.) But the potential can be anywhere, and in anybody.

In fact, for certain positions talent doesn't seem to be inherited at all. (Perhaps because the skills needed come more from life experience than genetics? And the life experiences are different enough that it doesn't pass on?) 

For that statement, I'm mostly just going on the disparity in skill between one king or queen and their heirs. If being a good ruler was truly a genetic trait, then we wouldn't see a competent king or queen so often followed by a complete disaster of their own flesh and blood.

And we wouldn't have seen so much talent show every time someone cleared the way of obstacles. (like Napolean and the "baton in every knapsack".) 

The military in particular highlights this, as the stresses of war tend to really show who's competent and who isn't. (and who's lucky vs unlucky. There's definitely an element of chance at play, too.)

Talent is everywhere, but the potential to develop those talents is often limited. (Unfairly, too. I do not think the world would be worse off for more Einsteins or Marie Curies, and the fact that there are probably people just as smart who never get the chance to shine is... sad.)

That means that life is all too often like the caterpillar pillar in Hope for the Flowers. That is, we're dealing with scarcity, and people are competing for it... and they get so sucked into the fight, and pushing and climbing their way to the top, that they generally just become part of the system and don't really change anything. 

And maybe they get close to the top, and realize how much the people at the very top are blocking them... and maybe they have a little revolution and get rid of the obstacles.. only for them to now be at the top, an obstacle for those below... and realize there's really nothing there at all. (Like, seriously. Let's all learn how to build our cocoons, turn into butterflies, and fly off rather than fighting to be king of the hill.)

Actually, that gets closer to what I wanted to point out.

Another reason I'm not exactly keen on a revolution is that it won't necessarily change anything.

That is, say you push out the entitled, arrogant assholes hogging all the resources? It's probably not going to be more than a generation or two until it's your own children or grandchildren who turn into the exact same sort of entitled, arrogant, asshole. 

It's not that the people on top are inherently bad, they're just reacting to the same systemic pressures that make the same thing happen over and over and over again. 

The real question is 'why do people raised with privilege and wealth so consistently become arrogant and entitled?

This is part of why I harp on the elite so much. Because one of the things that's supposed to distinguish them as 'worthy' and deserving of all their privilege is that they're supposed to be better than that. 

If the average person tends to let power go to their head, the 'elite' (if they're truly to be worthy of that title) should be able to handle it without doing so. 

That if an ordinary person might feel threatened by a particularly smart underling, a true 'elite' would realize that enabling that talent will make their company/organization/nation better and will try to develop it. A truly elite leader would enable the sort of meritocracy too many give lip service to, rather than drawing on the same 'who you know' networks to fight over the same group of well-connected individuals.

A truly elite person would be able to accept criticism and use it to improve their organization, not take it as a threat and a challenge.

A truly elite person would do their best to get past their own biases and misconceptions, even knowing that such a task is probably doomed to failure. 

And in the process, they would separate out their own self-interest from what's best for the larger group as a whole. Which is why a truly elite person wouldn't let their biases make them ignore all the evidence for climate change, nor let their self-interest keep them  from supporting realistic policies for combatting it.

In other words, truly elite people would act nothing like the arrogant, entitled, and selfish powers-that-be who have brought us to our current state of affairs. 

I don't exactly hate them, since they're just being... human. I just don't like them thinking they're all that special when they're showing again and again that they're just... human.

I kind of wish they were as good as they seem to think they are. Maybe we could actually stop the cycle.

I'm not sure that really got at what I wanted to say, but it seems like a good stopping point.

Thoughts on Systems to Prevent Abuse

I stumbled across this today, and I wanted to talk about this notion that "The government is bad and cannot be trusted with money".

Because I do not necessarily disagree with this, though I ascribe more to 'power corrupts' and that no system is perfect. i.e. They all have the potential for abuse.

This fits in rather well with the system of checks and balances our founders created, except that recent events have proven that those checks and balances aren't really enough.

That the legislative branch will not act as a check on the executive branch when legislators consider their party identity more important than their role as a legislator.

I've thought about this because, I'll admit, some of my preferred policies would make for a bigger government. (where, how, and why could take this on a tangent so I'll set that aside for now).

So here's the thing.

There is potential for abuse, but that's true for every single possibility. Private philanthropy runs the risk of some people not receiving aid because that private non-profit discriminates against their lifestyle. Like the Salvation Army denying aid to members of the LGBTQ community (though they sometimes try to say it's not so).

Public aid has the potential for abuse, because what you give you can withhold. Think about Trump threatening to give aid only to the states whose governors support him (or rather, do what he considers 'support'. I don't think it's really the same thing, but when you think obedience=support I suppose it looks that way.)

If you depend on the government, there's still the risk that some immoral and unethical opportunist will use that to reward obedience and punish dissent.

For profit companies run the same risks, too. Your aid may depend on working for that company, on not causing problems or agitating for more pay...

Etc, etcetera and so on and so forth.

While the only true answer is 'wisdom' (i.e. Having people with good judgment and discernment who know better than to abuse that power in such a way), wisdom is sadly in short supply. And is notoriously difficult to guarantee.

So I mostly think it's better to have something similar to those checks and balances. Even knowing that it may not be enough.

By which I mean - diversity.

A plethora of options.

If some controlling non-profit denies aid because someone is transsexual, then they should be able to get aid elsewhere.

Public, private, for-profit, non-profit... Let's enable all of them. And if any one is problematic it should be easy to use one of the others.

Its kind of similar for schools. Like sure, let's have charter schools and private schools and magnet schools... And also first-rate public schools.

Let's have top notch public transportation. And also the option for private.

Its a bit like nature.   That is, plants grow and spread their seeds far and wide (through wind, or animals, or whatever other technique they use). And some seeds fail, some don't find fertile ground or don't get enough sun or get eaten along the way, but enough do that plants can perpetuate themselves. And a healthy ecosystem has a diverse range of plants and animals that reach an equilibrium, even though any particular population may grow or decline depending on the weather or environment. (and I would need an expert to carry that analogy any further).

Government policy can and does shape that environment. Like propping up the railroad industry with federal land grants in the 1800s.

The issue isn't that "the government can't be trusted" and should be shut out of that sort of decision making as much as possible. The issue is that the government should deliberately shape that environment in ways that benefit the nation as a whole.

That is, it should help encourage that diversity of options. (it's part of what I like about federal grants to non profits, though there are issues with coordinating those diverse efforts to ensure everyone has access. Plus still the potential for abuse).

Its easier to say what's a bad environment than it is to say what's good, unfortunately. For example 'a bad environment makes it hard for people at the bottom to succeed through hard work and effort. Therefore systems that allow the rich and powerful to make more money while costs rise, and the resources to improve your situation grow increasingly out of reach... Are not sustainable and someone - perhaps the the government, if fools can't figure that out privately - should prevent it from happening.'

Anyways, that belief is overly simplified and currently being used to justify some pretty terrible choices. 

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.