Well, I guess the Bushies have proven that integrity doesn’t matter. To some extent, I guess we all knew that. This is the age of "reality TV." Don’t live your own life, live vicariously through someone else on TV. "It’s REAL. Those scenes would never be staged." You have to hand it to them.
The Republicans are obviously better at appealing to the fears of the populace, and pacifying them with candy. On the other hand, the Democrats want to believe in Camelot again – as if it ever existed; Kennedy won by a thin margin – and engage people’s hopes and desires for a better future.
Who’s more in touch with the reality of the times? Or, who’s creating the times? Seems sort of ironic. The same people that champion "family values," are also the people that undercut democracy by pursuing a campaign of debasement – attack, defamation, and false representation.
Where do we go from here? Personally, I think the tides are going to turn, even if it takes a decade. It might be advantageous for us liberals to take over the Republican Party the way the Christian Right has. Would be awfully funny to get a radical leftist elected to office under the guise of being a Republican.
Saturday, November 06, 2004
Sunday, August 01, 2004
Position: What’s the key word in the presidential election this fall? I don’t think it’s Iraq, or economy, or even "security." The key word, as I see it, is integrity. A word that is conspicuously absent from election materials. George Bush has had every opportunity this world has to offer presented to him on a silver platter, and he has never failed to achieve mediocrity. The overriding message behind Mr. Bush’s life is not to reach for your highest aspirations, but to use every trick or opportunity available to your own benefit – as well that of your undeserving friends.
The ultimate conservative mantra is to consolidate power in the hands of "the knowledgeable few." The masses are not educated enough to know, or do, the right thing; therefore, misinformation is deliberately crafted to support the central premise. It’s unfortunate, but it wouldn’t happen if it didn’t work. There are too many studies that support it. How many Americans believe that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq? Or, how many low to middle-income persons believe that tax cuts for the wealthy benefit them?
In contrast, John Kerry’s record in Congress doesn’t matter to me. I watched the Democratic convention briefly, but the rhetoric really meant nothing. Someone who strives for greatness despite being born into privilege has integrity in my book. Any man who enlists in the military to fight a war he’s not entirely certain about because of his sense of duty and responsibility has integrity.
The liberal mantra, if you could say there is one, is more about fairness than anything else. It’s inconceivable to me that this message is not more widely accepted. One really has to understand the nature of wealth to comprehend the significance – wealth is nothing more than a societal agreement. Society agrees to the idea of personal property, and thus that right is protected. If that agreement is broken, perhaps by the poor who are pushed to such a point as having nothing to lose [in the manner of the French revolution] then wealth ceases to exist in its present form.
The current election is not just about the presidency of the U.S. The election is about differing ideals and the future of the country. Do we strive for greatness and equality of opportunity for all, or do we trust a number of stodgy old-white-men to make decisions behind closed doors that "benefit everyone?"
The ultimate conservative mantra is to consolidate power in the hands of "the knowledgeable few." The masses are not educated enough to know, or do, the right thing; therefore, misinformation is deliberately crafted to support the central premise. It’s unfortunate, but it wouldn’t happen if it didn’t work. There are too many studies that support it. How many Americans believe that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq? Or, how many low to middle-income persons believe that tax cuts for the wealthy benefit them?
In contrast, John Kerry’s record in Congress doesn’t matter to me. I watched the Democratic convention briefly, but the rhetoric really meant nothing. Someone who strives for greatness despite being born into privilege has integrity in my book. Any man who enlists in the military to fight a war he’s not entirely certain about because of his sense of duty and responsibility has integrity.
The liberal mantra, if you could say there is one, is more about fairness than anything else. It’s inconceivable to me that this message is not more widely accepted. One really has to understand the nature of wealth to comprehend the significance – wealth is nothing more than a societal agreement. Society agrees to the idea of personal property, and thus that right is protected. If that agreement is broken, perhaps by the poor who are pushed to such a point as having nothing to lose [in the manner of the French revolution] then wealth ceases to exist in its present form.
The current election is not just about the presidency of the U.S. The election is about differing ideals and the future of the country. Do we strive for greatness and equality of opportunity for all, or do we trust a number of stodgy old-white-men to make decisions behind closed doors that "benefit everyone?"
Friday, May 07, 2004
Position: In a conversation I had many years ago with a friend, I suggested that it was “wrong” for people to demonstrate against the U.S. military and their combat actions. I’d like to take a moment and revise that. The point I was trying to make at the time was that it’s wrong for people to demonstrate against, or to, the military as an organization.
I fully understand that certain actions are outrageous and unacceptable, but I do not feel that demonstrating against the military is the most effective method of resolving the situation. Demonstrations against the military do not serve to correct wrongful and egregious actions, but do contribute to a decrease in the overall morale of military forces – usually under high stress given their combat role.
Speaking as a former military member, we are all fully aware that the orders we follow are by choice. However, whether or not we are involved in any “combat” or “policing” situations is a decision made by government leadership, lawmakers and the public-at-large.
I personally feel that a certain degree of excessive or illegal actions can be expected in any war or warlike situation; thus the expression “unleash the dogs of war.” Combat, and war in general, is not a role that any person can be expected to perform according to a predetermined guideline or rulebook. Yes, training is carried out to prepare soldiers for the situations they might encounter, but how strictly that training is adhered to in the midst of the high stress of gunfire and bombings is a different matter altogether.
Ultimately, there is nothing clean about war. I fully believe that military service members should be answerable to U.S. and U.N. laws, but public outcry and demonstration should be directed towards government leadership and lawmakers – who should consider potential debacles prior to committing troops.
I fully understand that certain actions are outrageous and unacceptable, but I do not feel that demonstrating against the military is the most effective method of resolving the situation. Demonstrations against the military do not serve to correct wrongful and egregious actions, but do contribute to a decrease in the overall morale of military forces – usually under high stress given their combat role.
Speaking as a former military member, we are all fully aware that the orders we follow are by choice. However, whether or not we are involved in any “combat” or “policing” situations is a decision made by government leadership, lawmakers and the public-at-large.
I personally feel that a certain degree of excessive or illegal actions can be expected in any war or warlike situation; thus the expression “unleash the dogs of war.” Combat, and war in general, is not a role that any person can be expected to perform according to a predetermined guideline or rulebook. Yes, training is carried out to prepare soldiers for the situations they might encounter, but how strictly that training is adhered to in the midst of the high stress of gunfire and bombings is a different matter altogether.
Ultimately, there is nothing clean about war. I fully believe that military service members should be answerable to U.S. and U.N. laws, but public outcry and demonstration should be directed towards government leadership and lawmakers – who should consider potential debacles prior to committing troops.
Monday, May 03, 2004
Quote: McWorld’s advocates will argue that the “market” does “serve” individuals by empowering them to “choose” but the choice is always about which items to buy and consume, never about whether to buy or consume anything at all; or about the right to earn an income that makes consumption possible; or about how to regulate and contain consumption so that it does not swallow up other larger public goods that cannot be advanced in the absence of democratic public institutions.
Jihad vs. McWorld, by Benjamin R. Barber
Jihad vs. McWorld, by Benjamin R. Barber
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
The latest dilemma: At what point does the political-economy collapse? There’s a continuing push for internationalized capitalism and expanding markets, at the same time, there is less concern for growing unemployment and societal disunity – not just in the U.S., but worldwide.
If we accept that the cost of living exceeds job growth and real wage increases, then we must also accept that at some point in the future this situation will create havoc.
Internationalization of capitalism involves the quest for cheap labor markets to produce goods sold in the first-world market, where the highest profits can be achieved. The inherent problem of internationalization is that it requires cheap labor, and in order for the U.S. to compete in a world economy the U.S. will need to devolve salaries to a point equivalent to labor markets elsewhere in the world.
Compounding the problem is that the cost of living in the U.S. is among the highest in the world. Continued internationalization threatens the societal structure of the U.S. by denying the backbone that creates and maintains the [consumer] prosperity of this country. Is it possible to return to feudalism? I would argue that polarization of this U.S. society is one of the greatest threats of our future. There are too many Americans who will not accept marginalization in order to support the powers-that-be.
Revolution has always been fomented from the marginalized middle class. The powers-that-be continue to market the idea of the individual and divide the interests of the middle class, but that can only work for so long. At a certain point, the populace wakes from its coma of plenitude and demands the parity it deserves.
If we accept that the cost of living exceeds job growth and real wage increases, then we must also accept that at some point in the future this situation will create havoc.
Internationalization of capitalism involves the quest for cheap labor markets to produce goods sold in the first-world market, where the highest profits can be achieved. The inherent problem of internationalization is that it requires cheap labor, and in order for the U.S. to compete in a world economy the U.S. will need to devolve salaries to a point equivalent to labor markets elsewhere in the world.
Compounding the problem is that the cost of living in the U.S. is among the highest in the world. Continued internationalization threatens the societal structure of the U.S. by denying the backbone that creates and maintains the [consumer] prosperity of this country. Is it possible to return to feudalism? I would argue that polarization of this U.S. society is one of the greatest threats of our future. There are too many Americans who will not accept marginalization in order to support the powers-that-be.
Revolution has always been fomented from the marginalized middle class. The powers-that-be continue to market the idea of the individual and divide the interests of the middle class, but that can only work for so long. At a certain point, the populace wakes from its coma of plenitude and demands the parity it deserves.
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
OpEd: The Outsourcing Debate, or lack of one
The current silence in the media today regarding outsourcing is horrifying. A sound and reasoned debate is desperately needed, and tragically short. The only voice in the media is entirely one-sided and not at all useful. The fallacy of this debate as proposed by Corporate America is that it’s somehow good for America. This proposal rests on three premises that are essentially false.
The first premise is that there are insufficient professionals – engineers and scientists – to supply American business demands. American universities do not graduate enough math and science majors to supply corporate interests. Thus, corporations must look overseas for their supply of professionals. If one understands the nature of capitalism, anytime there is a supply shortage demand increases and costs escalate. What is not generally understood is that this is good for America. By increasing salaries, more students are likely to study math and science to guaranty their future career success. However, by outsourcing companies have managed to subvert capitalism by acquiring their personnel overseas at a fraction of the cost. By doing this, they manage to drive down the costs of professional salaries to those commensurate with the third world, where professionals do not have nearly the same education costs as those in the U.S. Further, by driving down professional salaries corporations have reduced the likelihood that prospective students would go to the trouble of studying key subject areas – if there is no reward in doing so, they are not likely to do it. This further reduces the amount of students studying math and science, which is the basis of the argument.
The second premise is that by outsourcing corporations claim that they are able to reduce costs and pass those savings on to the consumer in the form of low cost products – thus pushing that money into the economy. This proposition is actually laughable. By firing three million workers this is somehow good because now those people could buy cheaper products, if they had jobs. Further, the rest of us who managed to maintain employment are now given the privilege of paying more for services – for providing healthcare for those now uninsured, for sustaining higher taxes or a higher debt burden as a result of a lower tax base, or for providing city services for those not able to pay.
Finally, corporate leadership claims that by outsourcing profits are maintained and American interests are somehow served. This argument rests on the notion that American business is somehow intrinsically American because it originated in the U.S. or serves the U.S. consumer. This, however, is not necessarily the case. Many “U.S.” corporations now register in the Caribbean islands – to reduce their tax liability. They produce their products, if they produce a product, in overseas markets in So. East Asia or Latin America. And, with outsourcing, any professional services required to design and package a product or service is additionally accomplished overseas. Given these conditions, what could be said about a “U.S.” corporation that makes it more American than a foreign corporation that sells products in the U.S?
The sociological terminology associated with this situation is “the tragedy of the commons” – where increasing numbers of users attempt to gain an unfair advantage at the expense of the system that sustains them. Unfortunately, more and more companies are taking advantage of their American association in order to reap the rewards of the American consumer market. At the same time, fewer and fewer companies are concerned with contributing to the economy they so clearly benefit from. If there is no penalty in non-contribution, this kind of behavior will only get worse. In the end, what is to happen when none of them are willing to contribute?
The current silence in the media today regarding outsourcing is horrifying. A sound and reasoned debate is desperately needed, and tragically short. The only voice in the media is entirely one-sided and not at all useful. The fallacy of this debate as proposed by Corporate America is that it’s somehow good for America. This proposal rests on three premises that are essentially false.
The first premise is that there are insufficient professionals – engineers and scientists – to supply American business demands. American universities do not graduate enough math and science majors to supply corporate interests. Thus, corporations must look overseas for their supply of professionals. If one understands the nature of capitalism, anytime there is a supply shortage demand increases and costs escalate. What is not generally understood is that this is good for America. By increasing salaries, more students are likely to study math and science to guaranty their future career success. However, by outsourcing companies have managed to subvert capitalism by acquiring their personnel overseas at a fraction of the cost. By doing this, they manage to drive down the costs of professional salaries to those commensurate with the third world, where professionals do not have nearly the same education costs as those in the U.S. Further, by driving down professional salaries corporations have reduced the likelihood that prospective students would go to the trouble of studying key subject areas – if there is no reward in doing so, they are not likely to do it. This further reduces the amount of students studying math and science, which is the basis of the argument.
The second premise is that by outsourcing corporations claim that they are able to reduce costs and pass those savings on to the consumer in the form of low cost products – thus pushing that money into the economy. This proposition is actually laughable. By firing three million workers this is somehow good because now those people could buy cheaper products, if they had jobs. Further, the rest of us who managed to maintain employment are now given the privilege of paying more for services – for providing healthcare for those now uninsured, for sustaining higher taxes or a higher debt burden as a result of a lower tax base, or for providing city services for those not able to pay.
Finally, corporate leadership claims that by outsourcing profits are maintained and American interests are somehow served. This argument rests on the notion that American business is somehow intrinsically American because it originated in the U.S. or serves the U.S. consumer. This, however, is not necessarily the case. Many “U.S.” corporations now register in the Caribbean islands – to reduce their tax liability. They produce their products, if they produce a product, in overseas markets in So. East Asia or Latin America. And, with outsourcing, any professional services required to design and package a product or service is additionally accomplished overseas. Given these conditions, what could be said about a “U.S.” corporation that makes it more American than a foreign corporation that sells products in the U.S?
The sociological terminology associated with this situation is “the tragedy of the commons” – where increasing numbers of users attempt to gain an unfair advantage at the expense of the system that sustains them. Unfortunately, more and more companies are taking advantage of their American association in order to reap the rewards of the American consumer market. At the same time, fewer and fewer companies are concerned with contributing to the economy they so clearly benefit from. If there is no penalty in non-contribution, this kind of behavior will only get worse. In the end, what is to happen when none of them are willing to contribute?
Saturday, March 20, 2004
Rant: Day of Frustration
The division of motor vehicles, in my case, has to be synonymous with time wasted. I honestly don’t think it’s possible to visit the agency without getting caught in some foul up from my past. Remember that speeding ticket you got in New York when you just got your license? Well, it turns out that the court administrator in that little community in the-middle-of-nowhere never recorded your payment – and now you have to find that ten-plus year-old record of your payment to clear up this matter.
I argue that there should be a statute of limitations on vehicular fines. If after five years the penalty has not been paid or acknowledged, then it should be annulled. The fact is that it’s entirely conceivable that the fine has been paid and not recorded as such – a result of some administrative error. In this situation the burden falls upon the fined to prove they have, in fact, paid the fine; the downside is that records beyond five years are rarely maintained. The fined, in this particular case, would now be required to pay the penalty twice in order to settle the motor vehicle records.
Critics may argue that this kind of system keeps criminals off the streets and highways by identifying them through their driver’s licenses. The most blaring inconsistency with that reasoning is that criminals have no problem with breaking the law – which is why they’re criminals. If they want to circumvent the system, they have only to use an alias to apply for a license in another state.
Another argument is that it pays to keep all this information straight so one doesn’t get into trouble. That would seem fair if in fact there were some sort of justice associated with it. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. The only justification for a system of this sort is economics. The townships that impose the fines seek to obtain needed fees, in lieu of taxes, through a system that is highly suspect. It seems entirely strange that there should be a statute of limitation on every crime, except murder and paying fines on your driver’s license. The lesson to be learned here is that there is no justice.
The division of motor vehicles, in my case, has to be synonymous with time wasted. I honestly don’t think it’s possible to visit the agency without getting caught in some foul up from my past. Remember that speeding ticket you got in New York when you just got your license? Well, it turns out that the court administrator in that little community in the-middle-of-nowhere never recorded your payment – and now you have to find that ten-plus year-old record of your payment to clear up this matter.
I argue that there should be a statute of limitations on vehicular fines. If after five years the penalty has not been paid or acknowledged, then it should be annulled. The fact is that it’s entirely conceivable that the fine has been paid and not recorded as such – a result of some administrative error. In this situation the burden falls upon the fined to prove they have, in fact, paid the fine; the downside is that records beyond five years are rarely maintained. The fined, in this particular case, would now be required to pay the penalty twice in order to settle the motor vehicle records.
Critics may argue that this kind of system keeps criminals off the streets and highways by identifying them through their driver’s licenses. The most blaring inconsistency with that reasoning is that criminals have no problem with breaking the law – which is why they’re criminals. If they want to circumvent the system, they have only to use an alias to apply for a license in another state.
Another argument is that it pays to keep all this information straight so one doesn’t get into trouble. That would seem fair if in fact there were some sort of justice associated with it. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. The only justification for a system of this sort is economics. The townships that impose the fines seek to obtain needed fees, in lieu of taxes, through a system that is highly suspect. It seems entirely strange that there should be a statute of limitation on every crime, except murder and paying fines on your driver’s license. The lesson to be learned here is that there is no justice.
Friday, March 12, 2004
Words: Employment in America
I've come to a conclusion... There are two tracks in the employment sector these days, and neither is good. One is the uneducated [non-diploma] track, where you just go straight into the workforce and develop experience. These people are not unintelligent, but "limited" from the outset. One could achieve an education, but ones upward mobility is somewhat limited.
The other is the educated track - where the person goes to college and gets a degree or extended degree [bachelors, graduate] before entering the workforce.
REALITY of the job market today is that there are TOO many companies that are not hiring the latter in significant numbers, unless you want to work on "commission." The barely livable wage today is being paid to the people with 5-10 yrs administrative experience [with or without a degree]. "We're looking for good soldiers."
If you're educated and looking for a job, the competition is very high for even the most menial position – unless you have specialized skills. The $30k/yr. job now receives applications from law school and graduate students. Can employers afford to be disrespectful and selective? Unfortunately YES. And thus, an education does not really yield a living wage [factoring in the cost of education and expenses of living in a city]. One could conceivably apply for the admin positions, but companies are distrustful of that too, as they think you're likely to jump-ship as soon as you find a "real" job.
So where does that leave a great number of college graduates? At best, disgruntled - at worst, marginalized. Tax cuts for the wealthy is NOT, nor has it ever been, a solution. It's important to remember that historically revolution is fomented in the marginalized and educated middleclasses.
I've come to a conclusion... There are two tracks in the employment sector these days, and neither is good. One is the uneducated [non-diploma] track, where you just go straight into the workforce and develop experience. These people are not unintelligent, but "limited" from the outset. One could achieve an education, but ones upward mobility is somewhat limited.
The other is the educated track - where the person goes to college and gets a degree or extended degree [bachelors, graduate] before entering the workforce.
REALITY of the job market today is that there are TOO many companies that are not hiring the latter in significant numbers, unless you want to work on "commission." The barely livable wage today is being paid to the people with 5-10 yrs administrative experience [with or without a degree]. "We're looking for good soldiers."
If you're educated and looking for a job, the competition is very high for even the most menial position – unless you have specialized skills. The $30k/yr. job now receives applications from law school and graduate students. Can employers afford to be disrespectful and selective? Unfortunately YES. And thus, an education does not really yield a living wage [factoring in the cost of education and expenses of living in a city]. One could conceivably apply for the admin positions, but companies are distrustful of that too, as they think you're likely to jump-ship as soon as you find a "real" job.
So where does that leave a great number of college graduates? At best, disgruntled - at worst, marginalized. Tax cuts for the wealthy is NOT, nor has it ever been, a solution. It's important to remember that historically revolution is fomented in the marginalized and educated middleclasses.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
OpEd: Employment
A recent CNN news story reported that a growing amount of business professionals claim that they “have a shortage of qualified candidates” for open employment positions. I would like to take a moment and dispute this claim.
As many of you know, or don’t know, I have been looking for work for over a year now. My resume listed everywhere – employers have contacted me on very few occasions. When I contact employers directly about open positions, or about finding a position, I’m told to leave my resume and someone will contact me. No one ever contacts me. If I call the prospective employer, the receptionist screening the calls nearly always assures me that “they are busy and someone will likely contact you if they have an opening.”
Now, I won’t argue that I’m the right candidate for every position, or that I have the right qualifications for every position. It appears to me, however, that prospective employers are so overly picky these days that a shortage of qualified candidates could be claimed for something as trivial as a difference of 5 wpm in typing speed.
So, the inevitable question is: what constitutes “qualified candidates?” Without a doubt a Fry Cook at McDonalds would not qualify as an Executive Assistant at a Fortune 500 company; however, an Administrative Assistant should definitely be considered. Moreover, anyone with administrative skills should be considered.
The problem with the economy today is NOT a shortage of qualified candidates. The problem today is a shortage of vision. During the 90’s a janitor who showed a degree of intelligence and capacity would have been trained and promoted as high as his competence took him.
Today managers and human resource professionals find any reason at all to disqualify otherwise qualified candidates. “We know that this position isn’t your dream job, so we’re looking for another candidate,” I was told recently. The message, of course, is that they did not trust that I have integrity, and assumed I would jump ship as soon as I found my “dream job.” The answer for them is that the candidate they seek aspires to mediocrity; if the position was for an Administrative Assistant, then that person should never want to be an Office Manager or anything more than an AA. In fact, there is little incentive for that AA to learn anything new in order to contribute to, or enhance, a company’s bottom-line. Why should they? Zero aspiration equals zero motivation.
Previously, the focus of hiring was not on the bottom-line, but on possibility. The janitor, as mentioned earlier, was thought capable of adding to an area of the company and was trained to provide that needed ‘umph.’ Did he know he was capable? Did management know he was capable? Did he have any kind of record?
Today the point is the bottom-line. Business professionals want people with a “proven track record,” even if that record is for emptying the trash. “Yes, at my previous job I was able to empty twenty-four garbage cans in one hour.” In fact, they will undoubtedly list the position that way in the classifieds, “Fortune 500 company in need of experienced Janitor. Must have 3-5 years experience and ability to empty twenty-four garbage cans in one hour minimum.” Otherwise competent janitors would apply for this position, or would be considered for this position, but today they are “not qualified.”
Now, I’m sure people would argue that limits must be set, and standards adhered to, to properly limit the pool of potential job candidates. There is a certain degree of validity to this argument, depending upon the potential position of the aspiring candidate. If one was hiring for a Telecom Technician, obviously the proper candidate must have Telecom experience – likewise for a business manager. However, when hiring for that same position, one cannot rule out telecom technicians because they lack experience with one or two pieces of telecom equipment, or fall short in the years of experience category. As any Industrial-Organization Psychologist would tell you, ‘previous experience is no guarantor of future success. One cannot gauge the motivations of potential candidates based on their current abilities.’
When it comes down to the bottom-line, this talk about “lack of qualified candidates” sounds like whining. What happened to the managers of years past who had the ability to gather a group of disparate people, unite them in a common vision, and inspire them to succeed? What happened to the HR professionals who had the ability to see that diamond-in-the-ruff capable of enhancing the company’s potential? A real “lack of qualified candidates” should suggest that businesses are investing in education and training programs – however, I shudder to think of what the reality is. Has the greatness passed?
A recent CNN news story reported that a growing amount of business professionals claim that they “have a shortage of qualified candidates” for open employment positions. I would like to take a moment and dispute this claim.
As many of you know, or don’t know, I have been looking for work for over a year now. My resume listed everywhere – employers have contacted me on very few occasions. When I contact employers directly about open positions, or about finding a position, I’m told to leave my resume and someone will contact me. No one ever contacts me. If I call the prospective employer, the receptionist screening the calls nearly always assures me that “they are busy and someone will likely contact you if they have an opening.”
Now, I won’t argue that I’m the right candidate for every position, or that I have the right qualifications for every position. It appears to me, however, that prospective employers are so overly picky these days that a shortage of qualified candidates could be claimed for something as trivial as a difference of 5 wpm in typing speed.
So, the inevitable question is: what constitutes “qualified candidates?” Without a doubt a Fry Cook at McDonalds would not qualify as an Executive Assistant at a Fortune 500 company; however, an Administrative Assistant should definitely be considered. Moreover, anyone with administrative skills should be considered.
The problem with the economy today is NOT a shortage of qualified candidates. The problem today is a shortage of vision. During the 90’s a janitor who showed a degree of intelligence and capacity would have been trained and promoted as high as his competence took him.
Today managers and human resource professionals find any reason at all to disqualify otherwise qualified candidates. “We know that this position isn’t your dream job, so we’re looking for another candidate,” I was told recently. The message, of course, is that they did not trust that I have integrity, and assumed I would jump ship as soon as I found my “dream job.” The answer for them is that the candidate they seek aspires to mediocrity; if the position was for an Administrative Assistant, then that person should never want to be an Office Manager or anything more than an AA. In fact, there is little incentive for that AA to learn anything new in order to contribute to, or enhance, a company’s bottom-line. Why should they? Zero aspiration equals zero motivation.
Previously, the focus of hiring was not on the bottom-line, but on possibility. The janitor, as mentioned earlier, was thought capable of adding to an area of the company and was trained to provide that needed ‘umph.’ Did he know he was capable? Did management know he was capable? Did he have any kind of record?
Today the point is the bottom-line. Business professionals want people with a “proven track record,” even if that record is for emptying the trash. “Yes, at my previous job I was able to empty twenty-four garbage cans in one hour.” In fact, they will undoubtedly list the position that way in the classifieds, “Fortune 500 company in need of experienced Janitor. Must have 3-5 years experience and ability to empty twenty-four garbage cans in one hour minimum.” Otherwise competent janitors would apply for this position, or would be considered for this position, but today they are “not qualified.”
Now, I’m sure people would argue that limits must be set, and standards adhered to, to properly limit the pool of potential job candidates. There is a certain degree of validity to this argument, depending upon the potential position of the aspiring candidate. If one was hiring for a Telecom Technician, obviously the proper candidate must have Telecom experience – likewise for a business manager. However, when hiring for that same position, one cannot rule out telecom technicians because they lack experience with one or two pieces of telecom equipment, or fall short in the years of experience category. As any Industrial-Organization Psychologist would tell you, ‘previous experience is no guarantor of future success. One cannot gauge the motivations of potential candidates based on their current abilities.’
When it comes down to the bottom-line, this talk about “lack of qualified candidates” sounds like whining. What happened to the managers of years past who had the ability to gather a group of disparate people, unite them in a common vision, and inspire them to succeed? What happened to the HR professionals who had the ability to see that diamond-in-the-ruff capable of enhancing the company’s potential? A real “lack of qualified candidates” should suggest that businesses are investing in education and training programs – however, I shudder to think of what the reality is. Has the greatness passed?
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
Story: Mondays
The sun was shining when Jack drove to work. Thirty half-conscious minutes of traffic and, coffee in hand, he'd make his way to the main building of the facility where all employees were required to enter through security. It was a stupid system that really offered only modest security - anyone really threatening could circumvent the system quite easily. He never quite understood how a rent-a-cop who earned nine or ten dollars-per-hour could be expected to risk his or her life to protect anything.
He chuckled to himself as he walked up to the building, taking note of the fact that there were no people around. He had a strange sensation that raised the hairs on the back of his neck. ‘This place is normally crawling with people at this time in the morning,’ he thought. He recalled a few days ago when it took him nearly thirty minutes to make it through security with all the people waiting. They had even gone so far as to make him empty his coffee cup before entering that time, as “the metal cup could be hiding something dangerous.” He had really laughed at the suggestion, but internally seethed at the ridiculous abuse of power by the security guard. ‘I guess you have to do something to justify your existence,’ he thought, ‘even if it’s making a ridiculous show of your less than apparent value.’
Jack approached the security desk with the baggage screening machine and noticed the guard was slumped over the desk; he appeared to be sleeping. Jack spoke to him loudly, “hey, this can’t be that boring of a job.” The guard did not respond or move. Jack reached over and tapped him on the shoulder – still no response. Jack gave him a shove and the guard fell off his share. He walked around to the other side of the desk and checked his vital signs only to discover that the guard was dead. There was no blood or anything, but this was far from a normal occurrence. Somewhat alarmed, Jack entered the building to phone the authorities.
Upon entering the building he noticed that other people throughout the building were slumped over their desks as well. The air in the building did not appear to be foul – a bit stale, but not foul – so Jack slowly made his way through the building. ‘If it’s a biological weapon or something, would it have worked this fast?’ he thought. ‘More importantly, who would attack a small bank processing facility?’ It all seemed very strange. He continued walking around noticing smartly dressed people slumped over or sprawled out on the floor.
‘Can this really be happening?’ he thought. He pinched himself really hard and the pain in his forearm was enough to tell him ‘no, you’re not dreaming!’
He continued walking through the building to the sound of machinery humming and the absence of any human sounds. He shouted, “Is anybody there?” There was no response.
He slowly made his way to his supervisor’s desk. Mr. Snowdon was a large man, and reminded Jack of Jaba-the-Hut from the Star Wars Trilogy. He had a way of rolling around the office in his desk chair, rather than getting up; a habit that destroyed several chairs and caused much humor throughout the building. A loud and belligerent man, Jack had found the easiest way of dealing with him was in being up front about everything. He looked at Snowdon who was now slumped back in his chair like a dead animal. Jack leaned over his desk and said “I’m going home, I’m not feeling well.”
With that Jack slowly walked out of the building and got back in his car. He drove the short distance back to his home – taking note of all the other vehicles on the road, and the people taking care of their business – and climbed back into bed and slept.
The sun was shining when Jack drove to work. Thirty half-conscious minutes of traffic and, coffee in hand, he'd make his way to the main building of the facility where all employees were required to enter through security. It was a stupid system that really offered only modest security - anyone really threatening could circumvent the system quite easily. He never quite understood how a rent-a-cop who earned nine or ten dollars-per-hour could be expected to risk his or her life to protect anything.
He chuckled to himself as he walked up to the building, taking note of the fact that there were no people around. He had a strange sensation that raised the hairs on the back of his neck. ‘This place is normally crawling with people at this time in the morning,’ he thought. He recalled a few days ago when it took him nearly thirty minutes to make it through security with all the people waiting. They had even gone so far as to make him empty his coffee cup before entering that time, as “the metal cup could be hiding something dangerous.” He had really laughed at the suggestion, but internally seethed at the ridiculous abuse of power by the security guard. ‘I guess you have to do something to justify your existence,’ he thought, ‘even if it’s making a ridiculous show of your less than apparent value.’
Jack approached the security desk with the baggage screening machine and noticed the guard was slumped over the desk; he appeared to be sleeping. Jack spoke to him loudly, “hey, this can’t be that boring of a job.” The guard did not respond or move. Jack reached over and tapped him on the shoulder – still no response. Jack gave him a shove and the guard fell off his share. He walked around to the other side of the desk and checked his vital signs only to discover that the guard was dead. There was no blood or anything, but this was far from a normal occurrence. Somewhat alarmed, Jack entered the building to phone the authorities.
Upon entering the building he noticed that other people throughout the building were slumped over their desks as well. The air in the building did not appear to be foul – a bit stale, but not foul – so Jack slowly made his way through the building. ‘If it’s a biological weapon or something, would it have worked this fast?’ he thought. ‘More importantly, who would attack a small bank processing facility?’ It all seemed very strange. He continued walking around noticing smartly dressed people slumped over or sprawled out on the floor.
‘Can this really be happening?’ he thought. He pinched himself really hard and the pain in his forearm was enough to tell him ‘no, you’re not dreaming!’
He continued walking through the building to the sound of machinery humming and the absence of any human sounds. He shouted, “Is anybody there?” There was no response.
He slowly made his way to his supervisor’s desk. Mr. Snowdon was a large man, and reminded Jack of Jaba-the-Hut from the Star Wars Trilogy. He had a way of rolling around the office in his desk chair, rather than getting up; a habit that destroyed several chairs and caused much humor throughout the building. A loud and belligerent man, Jack had found the easiest way of dealing with him was in being up front about everything. He looked at Snowdon who was now slumped back in his chair like a dead animal. Jack leaned over his desk and said “I’m going home, I’m not feeling well.”
With that Jack slowly walked out of the building and got back in his car. He drove the short distance back to his home – taking note of all the other vehicles on the road, and the people taking care of their business – and climbed back into bed and slept.
Friday, October 31, 2003
OpEd: The problem with leadership today.
Listening to NPR the other day I was struck by a report I heard regarding the sign “Mission Accomplished” that was made to hang on the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln when President Bush made his carrier landing one-hour out of San Diego. The fact that the sign hung as a backdrop meant little or nothing to me, but the blame game that followed disgusted, and disgusts me. Apparently this sign was attributed to military personnel on the carrier in their zeal to celebrate the U.S. victory in Iraq. After confirming that the sign was, in fact, not made or posted by any military personnel but by a White House advance PR team, President Bush attributed it to an overzealous White House staffer. Upon further questioning, the White House went on to attribute the “idea” to military personnel.
It seems to me that this type of behavior is symptomatic of society today. Rather than own up to their mistakes – and make efforts to correct them – this White House has taken to attributing any and all errors to other people or agencies and doing little, if anything, to correct their blatant, bordering on illegal, actions. ‘It wasn’t the White House that mislead the American public about Iraqi threats prior to the war, it was the CIA.’
This countries leadership, at once claiming the need for moral and ethical behavior from the populous, has shown an extremely poor if not dismal example – from Dennis Kozlowski and Bernard Ebbers, to Martha Stewart and Sam Waksal, to Jack Welch and Nick Grasso – of serving the public interest beyond the contrived PR photo op.
Morality and ethics are not merit badges you pin on your chest as you strive to make the proverbial eagle scout of life. There is a situation referred to by sociologists called “the tragedy of the commons,” in which too many free-riders [non-contributors] have a way of ruining societal good, or in our case the good of society, for everyone. While one may argue that the above leaders are contributing to the economy. This argument is deeply flawed as they also degrade the society that supports that economy. Once the populous accepts the axiom that “you have to look out for yourself,” then the common bonds and freedoms that make this country great are truly lost. If one has to pay for civility then no one benefits, least of all the wealthy that will have to pay an ever larger burden, while the society-at-large simply suffer.
This country needs real men, and women, building a society that everyone can live in; not simpering sycophants – smiling impassively in front of the cameras while lying, cheating, and, or stealing – claiming “morality and common good.”
Listening to NPR the other day I was struck by a report I heard regarding the sign “Mission Accomplished” that was made to hang on the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln when President Bush made his carrier landing one-hour out of San Diego. The fact that the sign hung as a backdrop meant little or nothing to me, but the blame game that followed disgusted, and disgusts me. Apparently this sign was attributed to military personnel on the carrier in their zeal to celebrate the U.S. victory in Iraq. After confirming that the sign was, in fact, not made or posted by any military personnel but by a White House advance PR team, President Bush attributed it to an overzealous White House staffer. Upon further questioning, the White House went on to attribute the “idea” to military personnel.
It seems to me that this type of behavior is symptomatic of society today. Rather than own up to their mistakes – and make efforts to correct them – this White House has taken to attributing any and all errors to other people or agencies and doing little, if anything, to correct their blatant, bordering on illegal, actions. ‘It wasn’t the White House that mislead the American public about Iraqi threats prior to the war, it was the CIA.’
This countries leadership, at once claiming the need for moral and ethical behavior from the populous, has shown an extremely poor if not dismal example – from Dennis Kozlowski and Bernard Ebbers, to Martha Stewart and Sam Waksal, to Jack Welch and Nick Grasso – of serving the public interest beyond the contrived PR photo op.
Morality and ethics are not merit badges you pin on your chest as you strive to make the proverbial eagle scout of life. There is a situation referred to by sociologists called “the tragedy of the commons,” in which too many free-riders [non-contributors] have a way of ruining societal good, or in our case the good of society, for everyone. While one may argue that the above leaders are contributing to the economy. This argument is deeply flawed as they also degrade the society that supports that economy. Once the populous accepts the axiom that “you have to look out for yourself,” then the common bonds and freedoms that make this country great are truly lost. If one has to pay for civility then no one benefits, least of all the wealthy that will have to pay an ever larger burden, while the society-at-large simply suffer.
This country needs real men, and women, building a society that everyone can live in; not simpering sycophants – smiling impassively in front of the cameras while lying, cheating, and, or stealing – claiming “morality and common good.”
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
OpEd: “The liberal media”
I’m aghast at the media coverage of the Kobe Bryant rape trial. It used to be that the alleged victim’s identity was protected. Today, not only is the alleged victim’s identity not protected [she was recently named in a tabloid newspaper], but the case is being judged in the media as well. A recent Reuters news release quoted Bryant’s defense team “claimed that the woman may have had sex with two other men before and after her encounter with Bryant.”
I may not be an attorney, or even a judge, but I can definitely say I’m more than irritated that this statement was in a Reuters news release. It is not news! The victim’s sexual history has no bearing on whether or not she was raped.
While we often hear about “the liberal media,” it is very seldom that we have a definition of the term “liberal” – given or provided in a generous and openhanded way; lacking moral restraint; associated with ideals of individualism especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives [Merriam-Webster]. What this tells us, is that the true definition is ambiguous at best.
What we see going on in the press today is far from “liberalism,” but more akin to extremism. Let us not leave the case to a judge and jury to decide, but play it out in the media by demonizing the victim and championing the sports figure the better to sell newspapers and magazines.
If the media has ever been liberal, it is so in the economic sense – that it freely reports and manipulates popular culture in whatever fashion best serves its economic interests. In the current age, media companies are the worlds largest conglomerates and profit enormously by pushing whatever agenda improves their annual financial statements, truth or justice be damned.
I’m aghast at the media coverage of the Kobe Bryant rape trial. It used to be that the alleged victim’s identity was protected. Today, not only is the alleged victim’s identity not protected [she was recently named in a tabloid newspaper], but the case is being judged in the media as well. A recent Reuters news release quoted Bryant’s defense team “claimed that the woman may have had sex with two other men before and after her encounter with Bryant.”
I may not be an attorney, or even a judge, but I can definitely say I’m more than irritated that this statement was in a Reuters news release. It is not news! The victim’s sexual history has no bearing on whether or not she was raped.
While we often hear about “the liberal media,” it is very seldom that we have a definition of the term “liberal” – given or provided in a generous and openhanded way; lacking moral restraint; associated with ideals of individualism especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives [Merriam-Webster]. What this tells us, is that the true definition is ambiguous at best.
What we see going on in the press today is far from “liberalism,” but more akin to extremism. Let us not leave the case to a judge and jury to decide, but play it out in the media by demonizing the victim and championing the sports figure the better to sell newspapers and magazines.
If the media has ever been liberal, it is so in the economic sense – that it freely reports and manipulates popular culture in whatever fashion best serves its economic interests. In the current age, media companies are the worlds largest conglomerates and profit enormously by pushing whatever agenda improves their annual financial statements, truth or justice be damned.
Wednesday, September 10, 2003
OpEd: Eyes wide shut
The definition has never been clearer to me than after having read a recent article on the agricultural trade gaps of the developing world. We go forward, we go back. With one hand the western world pledges assistance to the developing world [$50 billion], and with the other they offer subsidies to their own agricultural producers [$320 billion] artificially reducing production costs and effectively marginalizing or eliminating competition.
This marginalizing or elimination of competition has two costs – primarily it costs the consumer more to buy products in a market where a monopoly is held, and secondly it forces the competition, usually foreign peasant farmers, to essentially work for nothing.
While the American public may ask, “what does this have to do with me?” A solid case can be made linking increasing security concerns [i.e. terrorism] with the growing dissatisfaction with the western world’s economic policies. Essentially, millions of people kept impoverished through deliberate manipulation of the world economy by the west are reaching a breaking point.
Critics may assert the importance of maintaining our own economy and the need to support our own producers, but this argument rings somewhat hollow when faced with mega-corporations, corporate crime, obscene wealth, overindulgence, and obesity – all paint a vivid picture of irresponsibility in the extreme.
What is desperately needed is dissemination of information the consumer can actually use. Mr. or Mrs. Consumer deserves to know that their government is blocking trade with other countries so they can pay higher product costs and support government cronies in big business. Is this likely to happen? The western world continues to increase telephone density, add television transmission [200+ channels], increase bandwidth on the Internet, and expand pulp media to niche markets – and yet we remain in the dark regarding issues of paramount concern. Eyes wide shut!
The definition has never been clearer to me than after having read a recent article on the agricultural trade gaps of the developing world. We go forward, we go back. With one hand the western world pledges assistance to the developing world [$50 billion], and with the other they offer subsidies to their own agricultural producers [$320 billion] artificially reducing production costs and effectively marginalizing or eliminating competition.
This marginalizing or elimination of competition has two costs – primarily it costs the consumer more to buy products in a market where a monopoly is held, and secondly it forces the competition, usually foreign peasant farmers, to essentially work for nothing.
While the American public may ask, “what does this have to do with me?” A solid case can be made linking increasing security concerns [i.e. terrorism] with the growing dissatisfaction with the western world’s economic policies. Essentially, millions of people kept impoverished through deliberate manipulation of the world economy by the west are reaching a breaking point.
Critics may assert the importance of maintaining our own economy and the need to support our own producers, but this argument rings somewhat hollow when faced with mega-corporations, corporate crime, obscene wealth, overindulgence, and obesity – all paint a vivid picture of irresponsibility in the extreme.
What is desperately needed is dissemination of information the consumer can actually use. Mr. or Mrs. Consumer deserves to know that their government is blocking trade with other countries so they can pay higher product costs and support government cronies in big business. Is this likely to happen? The western world continues to increase telephone density, add television transmission [200+ channels], increase bandwidth on the Internet, and expand pulp media to niche markets – and yet we remain in the dark regarding issues of paramount concern. Eyes wide shut!
Wednesday, July 30, 2003
OpEd: The music debate...
Mike is a 12 yr. old middle school student who excels in math, plays baseball and videogames with friends, and is currently being charged criminally [currently a misdemeanor] for exchanging music through a peer-to-peer file sharing program. If his story sounds a bit ridiculous, you might want to pay closer attention. His story is not uncommon – it might even sound familiar to those of us who used to make audio cassette recordings of our favorite musicians.
In a chat room on AOL our unfortunate youth made a friend – the modern day equivalent of a Pen pal – who happens to live in Switzerland. His friend turned him on to a German band called Ramstein, whose music he was assured to enjoy. Not a “thief” by nature, our youth went to his local music store to buy the cd and was informed that since the music was an import he would have to pay 30% more money and wait 4-6 weeks. Irritated, Mike accepted the situation. One week after his order, Mike received a call from the music store telling him that the cd was backordered and would now take 6-8 weeks for delivery. Aghast, Mike cancelled the order, went online and downloaded 70% of the cd within one hour. He is currently facing charges under the Copyright law for file sharing of copyrighted music.
While the Recording Industry Association of America [RIAA] would like to make their case for tougher Copyright laws about the artists getting paid for their music, that argument rings hollow when one considers how much the artists actually get paid – if the music sells less than half-a-million copies [$17.99 x 500,000 = 8,995,000.00] the artist does not even break even – in comparison the new head of the RIAA recently signed a contract for a one million dollar-a-year salary.
If you feel like you’ve missed something, you have. The RIAA's [and other similar industry bodies] reactions are frenzied and outlandish because they can see the beginning of their end. Historically the relationship between musicians and the music publishers was a mutual dependency. The artists were needed to create the music, the publishers to distribute and market it. Both were necessary to move enough “product” to make the process profitable. The advent of the net, CD burners, MP3's etc. is that the publisher is no longer necessary to distribute the music.
Half the RIAA justification for being in the loop has effectively disappeared. Considering that they take the lion’s share of the sale price of a CD to cover costs and profits, there is plenty of incentive for artists and music lovers to come up with an alternative solution to the marketing of music. If such a solution occurs the RIAA's last justification for being in the loop disappears. When that happens, even given their size and control over the market, their disappearance is a foregone conclusion.
Not surprisingly the industry is using everything they can lay their hands on to scare the average consumer away from it. Everything except offering the consumer what he wants: immediately available music at a reasonable price. Unfortunately, like the old world monopolist organizations that they are (e.g. the beast) their chief weapon is government intervention because they no longer have anything substantial to offer. Imagine what would happen to any other industry where the producers threatened their consumers?
The copyright thing is a smokescreen, piracy is a negligible threat. They're fighting to maintain control, and for their survival.
Mike is a 12 yr. old middle school student who excels in math, plays baseball and videogames with friends, and is currently being charged criminally [currently a misdemeanor] for exchanging music through a peer-to-peer file sharing program. If his story sounds a bit ridiculous, you might want to pay closer attention. His story is not uncommon – it might even sound familiar to those of us who used to make audio cassette recordings of our favorite musicians.
In a chat room on AOL our unfortunate youth made a friend – the modern day equivalent of a Pen pal – who happens to live in Switzerland. His friend turned him on to a German band called Ramstein, whose music he was assured to enjoy. Not a “thief” by nature, our youth went to his local music store to buy the cd and was informed that since the music was an import he would have to pay 30% more money and wait 4-6 weeks. Irritated, Mike accepted the situation. One week after his order, Mike received a call from the music store telling him that the cd was backordered and would now take 6-8 weeks for delivery. Aghast, Mike cancelled the order, went online and downloaded 70% of the cd within one hour. He is currently facing charges under the Copyright law for file sharing of copyrighted music.
While the Recording Industry Association of America [RIAA] would like to make their case for tougher Copyright laws about the artists getting paid for their music, that argument rings hollow when one considers how much the artists actually get paid – if the music sells less than half-a-million copies [$17.99 x 500,000 = 8,995,000.00] the artist does not even break even – in comparison the new head of the RIAA recently signed a contract for a one million dollar-a-year salary.
If you feel like you’ve missed something, you have. The RIAA's [and other similar industry bodies] reactions are frenzied and outlandish because they can see the beginning of their end. Historically the relationship between musicians and the music publishers was a mutual dependency. The artists were needed to create the music, the publishers to distribute and market it. Both were necessary to move enough “product” to make the process profitable. The advent of the net, CD burners, MP3's etc. is that the publisher is no longer necessary to distribute the music.
Half the RIAA justification for being in the loop has effectively disappeared. Considering that they take the lion’s share of the sale price of a CD to cover costs and profits, there is plenty of incentive for artists and music lovers to come up with an alternative solution to the marketing of music. If such a solution occurs the RIAA's last justification for being in the loop disappears. When that happens, even given their size and control over the market, their disappearance is a foregone conclusion.
Not surprisingly the industry is using everything they can lay their hands on to scare the average consumer away from it. Everything except offering the consumer what he wants: immediately available music at a reasonable price. Unfortunately, like the old world monopolist organizations that they are (e.g. the beast) their chief weapon is government intervention because they no longer have anything substantial to offer. Imagine what would happen to any other industry where the producers threatened their consumers?
The copyright thing is a smokescreen, piracy is a negligible threat. They're fighting to maintain control, and for their survival.
Thursday, July 24, 2003
Excerpt from Complexity by M. Mitchell Waldrop
Indeed, said Langton, by taking this bottom-up idea to its logical conclusion, you could see it as a new and thoroughly scientific version of vitalism: the ancient idea that life involves some kind of energy, or force, or spirit that transcends mere matter. The fact is that life does transcend mere matter, he said - not because living systems are animated by some vital essence operating outside the laws of physics and chemistry, but because a population of simple things following simple rules of interaction can behave in eternally surprising ways. Life may indeed be a kind of biochemical machine, he said. But to animate such a machine "is not to bring life to a machine; rather, it is to organize a population of machines in such a way that their interacting dynamics are 'alive.'
Indeed, said Langton, by taking this bottom-up idea to its logical conclusion, you could see it as a new and thoroughly scientific version of vitalism: the ancient idea that life involves some kind of energy, or force, or spirit that transcends mere matter. The fact is that life does transcend mere matter, he said - not because living systems are animated by some vital essence operating outside the laws of physics and chemistry, but because a population of simple things following simple rules of interaction can behave in eternally surprising ways. Life may indeed be a kind of biochemical machine, he said. But to animate such a machine "is not to bring life to a machine; rather, it is to organize a population of machines in such a way that their interacting dynamics are 'alive.'
Monday, July 07, 2003
OpEd: Words...
A recent televised press briefing found Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, debating the meaning of the word “quagmire” with a CNN correspondent, who posed a question referencing the word in relation to our current situation in Iraq.
Instead of answering the question – yes or no – the Secretary of Defense sought to extoll his professorial knowledge in a ridiculous debate over the generally accepted meaning of the word. Ultimately the definition was conceded to the correspondent, after a dictionary was produced, and answered by the Secretary with a flat one-word answer, no.
This example is indicative of a misguided style that seems to permeate this administration, from Jr. at the top all the way down. The “I know better than you” style, while entertaining, is often a symptom of a deeper ill, that of one inclined to believe their own hype. At times laypersons may argue the merits of the perception vs. reality debate – is perception reality? – but this argument does not necessarily translate into votes. Let’s understand the situation: money garnered for electoral campaigns, opinion polls, and lack of opposition – all do not indicate a strong position.
If the 2000 Presidential election is any indication, it should be plainly clear to everyone that money spent on elections does not translate into votes. Based on the FEC website of money collected as of July of 2000, Jr. raised three times more money than Gore and did not win the popular vote. I will not get into the chaos of the Florida system, but suffice to say that if the supreme court had not voted to disenfranchise voters the current administration would be different.
The administration being what it is – and following its present course – one would get the idea that the American public supports it judging by the most recent Gallup poll following the State of the Nation, where the President received a 61% approval rating. While a sample of American households may be used for such a survey, the survey does not necessarily imply that said sample is representative of American households. According to the latest news on unemployment [its highest level in nine years], and other news stories of segments of the job market that no longer qualify for unemployment benefits and have discontinued their search for work [thus no longer counted in the unemployment numbers], one might get the idea that the “approval rating” from the “representative sample” in the Gallup poll is not necessarily representative.
More than representative samples, a distinct lack of voter initiative should be most telling of political power. When people have no choice of whom they support, the process has surely weakened. Judging by the opposition, namely the democrats, and their failure to define a position on many political iniciatives it becomes apparent that the biggest casualty of the current situation is real political choice. This lack of political alternatives could very easily translate into the appearance of political support.
The administration fails to take note of their real position of riding high on a wave of silence. Lack of political debate does not imply popular support. Donald Rumsfeld’s comments suggest a swagger that his fellow administrators don’t necessarily merit, and further indicate a gaping opportunity for a politician to offer the choice so desperately desired by a majority of voters.
A recent televised press briefing found Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, debating the meaning of the word “quagmire” with a CNN correspondent, who posed a question referencing the word in relation to our current situation in Iraq.
Instead of answering the question – yes or no – the Secretary of Defense sought to extoll his professorial knowledge in a ridiculous debate over the generally accepted meaning of the word. Ultimately the definition was conceded to the correspondent, after a dictionary was produced, and answered by the Secretary with a flat one-word answer, no.
This example is indicative of a misguided style that seems to permeate this administration, from Jr. at the top all the way down. The “I know better than you” style, while entertaining, is often a symptom of a deeper ill, that of one inclined to believe their own hype. At times laypersons may argue the merits of the perception vs. reality debate – is perception reality? – but this argument does not necessarily translate into votes. Let’s understand the situation: money garnered for electoral campaigns, opinion polls, and lack of opposition – all do not indicate a strong position.
If the 2000 Presidential election is any indication, it should be plainly clear to everyone that money spent on elections does not translate into votes. Based on the FEC website of money collected as of July of 2000, Jr. raised three times more money than Gore and did not win the popular vote. I will not get into the chaos of the Florida system, but suffice to say that if the supreme court had not voted to disenfranchise voters the current administration would be different.
The administration being what it is – and following its present course – one would get the idea that the American public supports it judging by the most recent Gallup poll following the State of the Nation, where the President received a 61% approval rating. While a sample of American households may be used for such a survey, the survey does not necessarily imply that said sample is representative of American households. According to the latest news on unemployment [its highest level in nine years], and other news stories of segments of the job market that no longer qualify for unemployment benefits and have discontinued their search for work [thus no longer counted in the unemployment numbers], one might get the idea that the “approval rating” from the “representative sample” in the Gallup poll is not necessarily representative.
More than representative samples, a distinct lack of voter initiative should be most telling of political power. When people have no choice of whom they support, the process has surely weakened. Judging by the opposition, namely the democrats, and their failure to define a position on many political iniciatives it becomes apparent that the biggest casualty of the current situation is real political choice. This lack of political alternatives could very easily translate into the appearance of political support.
The administration fails to take note of their real position of riding high on a wave of silence. Lack of political debate does not imply popular support. Donald Rumsfeld’s comments suggest a swagger that his fellow administrators don’t necessarily merit, and further indicate a gaping opportunity for a politician to offer the choice so desperately desired by a majority of voters.
Friday, June 27, 2003
Today's Quandry:
Listening to NPR this morning I can't help but feel like a foreigner to this world. What's going on?
I was listening to a review of the new Charlie's Angels movie, and then a commentary about a new play about politics.
In reference to the Charlie's Angels movie, the critic was talking about how over-the-top the picture was. It had very little content, but not for all the talent that went into it. The critic was bemoaning the fact that it was a picture that just tried too hard with stunts, camera angles, technical wizardry, etc. - but lacked the real content of a story or a plot. The movie sought to celebrate feminine empowerment, but tried to do so as if it could be accomplished through a music video. There was no unity of any kind, just three individuals with three stories that happened to be told in the form of a movie with the same title.
The story of the play on politics had to do with the marketing and sales of politicians, and how incestuous the whole thing has become. One side is trying to anticipate the moves of the other side, whom they know, while trying to direct a candidate who doesn't necessarily believe the hype that they are trying to sell.
Seems like there is so very little true creativity in the world. It used to be about novelty - trying something not done before, now it's all about technical perfection divorced from humanism.
Can't help feeling like I'm trapped on rewind - with each play things just get more and more intense, technically perfect, and yet stale at the same time.
Listening to NPR this morning I can't help but feel like a foreigner to this world. What's going on?
I was listening to a review of the new Charlie's Angels movie, and then a commentary about a new play about politics.
In reference to the Charlie's Angels movie, the critic was talking about how over-the-top the picture was. It had very little content, but not for all the talent that went into it. The critic was bemoaning the fact that it was a picture that just tried too hard with stunts, camera angles, technical wizardry, etc. - but lacked the real content of a story or a plot. The movie sought to celebrate feminine empowerment, but tried to do so as if it could be accomplished through a music video. There was no unity of any kind, just three individuals with three stories that happened to be told in the form of a movie with the same title.
The story of the play on politics had to do with the marketing and sales of politicians, and how incestuous the whole thing has become. One side is trying to anticipate the moves of the other side, whom they know, while trying to direct a candidate who doesn't necessarily believe the hype that they are trying to sell.
Seems like there is so very little true creativity in the world. It used to be about novelty - trying something not done before, now it's all about technical perfection divorced from humanism.
Can't help feeling like I'm trapped on rewind - with each play things just get more and more intense, technically perfect, and yet stale at the same time.
Monday, June 23, 2003
Op-Ed: Business as usual, not!
It would appear that the battle of PR has started in the dispute of Unix vs. Linux computer software. [Re: I.B.M.'s Opponent in Suit Criticizes Linux Advocate, NY Times, June 18] The central premise of this dispute is intellectual property rights, and at the heart of this particular article is a statement by Linus Torvald, the original developer of Linux, who states "I do not look up any patents on principle because (a) it's a horrible waste of time and (b) I don't want to know." The background of this statement, which is not included in the article, is the very important 1992-93 lawsuit between Unix System Laboratories and Novell vs. the University of California at Berkeley [UCB] over this very same issue. According to opensource.org, the court ruling in that case, which established the basis of Mr. Torvald’s response, was that there was so very little of the original Unix code in the version disseminated by UCB that the case was untenable.
What is more important to the present argument however, is a much older encounter, that of the old guard business model of closed door development and licensed ownership versus the new model of nonproprietary ownership and cooperative innovation. The battle being waged is not merely about the intellectual property rights brazenly asserted by SCO – the current owner of the original Novell version – in it’s suit against I.B.M., but the future of software innovation, and computer technology as a whole.
The old guard business model, pioneered at the beginning of the past century, primarily consisted of individuals or corporations independently funding and developing competing products for commercial use. At the heart of this schema is a winner take all mentality, wherein one seeks to dominate the market and dictate product standards. While this schema may have served itself well during the industrial age, it is anathema to the information age, where standards must be agreed upon by multiple developers to establish baseline uniformity as a standard from which to innovate from. The suit launched by SCO would have us return to the old days where development is limited and innovation is stifled; where tech companies are forced to compete against one another and use differing computer standards, to the detriment of consumers. The avante guard, on the other hand, has taken the requirements of the information age to heart, witness stodgy, old I.B.M.’s conversion to the growing cooperative model. The benefits of cooperation are such that all “tech” companies can essentially use the same standard and evolve in a manner that keeps technical innovation away from monopolistic bottlenecks.
This “same standard” means that companies can share in research and development, and individual hardware producers are not beholden to any one software developer, ultimately resulting in cheaper and more reliable products for the consumer. The old guard model, on the other hand, would merely concentrate chaotic power – through constantly shifting technology standards – in the hands of a few individuals, or corporations. While some may argue that this older model allows easier understanding of near limitless possibility, it is precisely this limiting which threatens our technological future. The ability to mass produce technology requires a dependable, same standard to allow for longer production cycles, which would be shortened to allow for production of multiple, or ever changing, standards if we were to revert to the old guard model.
Ultimately what this case needs is a clear message to those who spill the proverbial “hot coffee” and seek to collect monies for injuries allegedly suffered. The new cooperative model is far too busy solving real technology issues than to deal with questions already settled, vis-à-vis the Berkeley case. The situation of SCO’s failed business model should not open the door for after-the-fact lawsuits.
It would appear that the battle of PR has started in the dispute of Unix vs. Linux computer software. [Re: I.B.M.'s Opponent in Suit Criticizes Linux Advocate, NY Times, June 18] The central premise of this dispute is intellectual property rights, and at the heart of this particular article is a statement by Linus Torvald, the original developer of Linux, who states "I do not look up any patents on principle because (a) it's a horrible waste of time and (b) I don't want to know." The background of this statement, which is not included in the article, is the very important 1992-93 lawsuit between Unix System Laboratories and Novell vs. the University of California at Berkeley [UCB] over this very same issue. According to opensource.org, the court ruling in that case, which established the basis of Mr. Torvald’s response, was that there was so very little of the original Unix code in the version disseminated by UCB that the case was untenable.
What is more important to the present argument however, is a much older encounter, that of the old guard business model of closed door development and licensed ownership versus the new model of nonproprietary ownership and cooperative innovation. The battle being waged is not merely about the intellectual property rights brazenly asserted by SCO – the current owner of the original Novell version – in it’s suit against I.B.M., but the future of software innovation, and computer technology as a whole.
The old guard business model, pioneered at the beginning of the past century, primarily consisted of individuals or corporations independently funding and developing competing products for commercial use. At the heart of this schema is a winner take all mentality, wherein one seeks to dominate the market and dictate product standards. While this schema may have served itself well during the industrial age, it is anathema to the information age, where standards must be agreed upon by multiple developers to establish baseline uniformity as a standard from which to innovate from. The suit launched by SCO would have us return to the old days where development is limited and innovation is stifled; where tech companies are forced to compete against one another and use differing computer standards, to the detriment of consumers. The avante guard, on the other hand, has taken the requirements of the information age to heart, witness stodgy, old I.B.M.’s conversion to the growing cooperative model. The benefits of cooperation are such that all “tech” companies can essentially use the same standard and evolve in a manner that keeps technical innovation away from monopolistic bottlenecks.
This “same standard” means that companies can share in research and development, and individual hardware producers are not beholden to any one software developer, ultimately resulting in cheaper and more reliable products for the consumer. The old guard model, on the other hand, would merely concentrate chaotic power – through constantly shifting technology standards – in the hands of a few individuals, or corporations. While some may argue that this older model allows easier understanding of near limitless possibility, it is precisely this limiting which threatens our technological future. The ability to mass produce technology requires a dependable, same standard to allow for longer production cycles, which would be shortened to allow for production of multiple, or ever changing, standards if we were to revert to the old guard model.
Ultimately what this case needs is a clear message to those who spill the proverbial “hot coffee” and seek to collect monies for injuries allegedly suffered. The new cooperative model is far too busy solving real technology issues than to deal with questions already settled, vis-à-vis the Berkeley case. The situation of SCO’s failed business model should not open the door for after-the-fact lawsuits.
Saturday, June 14, 2003
Exerpt from "Politics and the English Language," George Orwell 1946
In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism., question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:
While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.
In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism., question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:
While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.
Sunday, June 08, 2003
Excerpt from Complexity by M. Mitchell Waldrop
Take water, for example. There’s nothing very complicated about a water molecule: it’s just one big oxygen atom with two little hydrogen atoms stuck to it like Mickey Mouse ears. Its behavior is governed by well-understood equations of atomic physics. But now put a few zillion of those molecules together in the same pot. Suddenly you’ve got a substance that shimmers and gurgles and sloshes. Those zillions of molecules have collectively acquired a property, liquidity, that none of them possesses alone. In fact, unless you know precisely where and how to look for it, there’s nothing in those well-understood equations of atomic physics that even hints at such a property. The liquidity is “emergent.”
In much the same way, says Anderson, emergent properties often produce emergent behaviors. Cool these liquid water molecules down a bit, for example, and at 32 degrees fahrenheit they will suddenly quit tumbling over one another at random. Instead they will undergo a “phase transition,” locking themselves into the orderly crystalline array known as ice. Or if you were to go the other direction and heat the liquid, those same tumbling water molecules will suddenly fly apart and undergo a phase transition into water vapor. Neither phase transition would have any meaning for one molecule alone.
And so it goes, says Anderson. Weather is an emergent property: take your water vapor out over the Gulf of Mexico and let it interact with sunlight and wind, and it can organize itself into an element structure known as a hurricane. Life is an emergent property, the product of DNA molecules and protein molecules and myriad other kinds of molecules, all obeying the laws of chemistry. The mind is an emergent property, the product of several billion neurons obeying the biological laws of the living cell. In fact, as Anderson pointed out in the 1972 paper, you can think of the universe as forming a kind of hierarchy: “at each level of complexity, entirely new properties appear. [And] at each stage, entirely new laws, concepts, and generalizations are necessary, requiring inspiration and creativity to just as great a degree as in the previous one. Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry.”
Take water, for example. There’s nothing very complicated about a water molecule: it’s just one big oxygen atom with two little hydrogen atoms stuck to it like Mickey Mouse ears. Its behavior is governed by well-understood equations of atomic physics. But now put a few zillion of those molecules together in the same pot. Suddenly you’ve got a substance that shimmers and gurgles and sloshes. Those zillions of molecules have collectively acquired a property, liquidity, that none of them possesses alone. In fact, unless you know precisely where and how to look for it, there’s nothing in those well-understood equations of atomic physics that even hints at such a property. The liquidity is “emergent.”
In much the same way, says Anderson, emergent properties often produce emergent behaviors. Cool these liquid water molecules down a bit, for example, and at 32 degrees fahrenheit they will suddenly quit tumbling over one another at random. Instead they will undergo a “phase transition,” locking themselves into the orderly crystalline array known as ice. Or if you were to go the other direction and heat the liquid, those same tumbling water molecules will suddenly fly apart and undergo a phase transition into water vapor. Neither phase transition would have any meaning for one molecule alone.
And so it goes, says Anderson. Weather is an emergent property: take your water vapor out over the Gulf of Mexico and let it interact with sunlight and wind, and it can organize itself into an element structure known as a hurricane. Life is an emergent property, the product of DNA molecules and protein molecules and myriad other kinds of molecules, all obeying the laws of chemistry. The mind is an emergent property, the product of several billion neurons obeying the biological laws of the living cell. In fact, as Anderson pointed out in the 1972 paper, you can think of the universe as forming a kind of hierarchy: “at each level of complexity, entirely new properties appear. [And] at each stage, entirely new laws, concepts, and generalizations are necessary, requiring inspiration and creativity to just as great a degree as in the previous one. Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)