Posts
We're approaching zero-hour for the 2008 election pretty quickly, which inevitably means that a lot of the people involved have completed the long and difficult process of losing their minds, and to a significant degree among the electorate, there's really no more vote-winning or losing going on. It's all over except for the screaming, as the saying goes.
Which, if you haven't noticed, people are doing a damned lot of. When it's all over except for the screaming, that also means that there's nothing else going on to distract you from the screaming. I think it's worth stopping for a moment and, on both sides, taking a little reality check of what's coming out of our mouths.
A story at Pajamas Media essentially promises the end of capitalism in the US as we know it, a depression, devastating restrictions of first amendment rights, and probably a marked decline in the quality of corndogs. Why not. This from the Pajamas Media that I once regarded as more cool-headed and objective and less prone to fits of panic than most news sources. Now they're just another biased online news source, and I can pretty easily see a time coming when I have to fact-check them just as rigorously as I have to check guys like DailyKos.
Speaking of whom...
They're not doing any better. Just when you thought they couldn't abandon thought for propaganda anymore because they were out of thoughts, someone writes this post about how Obama is going to change America and the world by sheer power of his blackness and photogeniety with children. Nobody's playing the racism card harder than the left is at a time when it is absolutely clear that it's not really a factor, and may actually be helping Obama.
I seem to be finding myself sadly alone in this political landscape because I don't actually believe that Obama is Jesus 2.0 or Satan Classic. I think it's time for people on both sides to acknowledge that he will not be the Messiah the Left expects, and he will not be the demon that the Right expects. Probably. There's always the off chance that he might actually pull one off, but that's not how the presidency works in anything but extremely rare cases.
If it sounds like I'm assaulting people's personal passions, then I think I'm striking exactly the right tone. This is politics. There are no saints, no angels, no demons, and everyone is a sinner. You don't make it to the national political stage without pulling some shit here and there, no matter who you are. There are no perfect people, no perfect policies, and absolutely no historical reason for anyone to expect either. Passion doesn't really have a place here, because it blinds people to those realities.
More than America needs a Maverick or a Messiah, right now it needs a couple hours of sleep, some coffee, and maybe the number of a rehab clinic.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Odd Coincidence
Last night after work, I went to help out my girlfriend and a gaggle of her friends at a haunted house that they were assembling for a charity. That was cool enough all by itself, but in the process of renovation, the owner found a cluster of newspapers and a few copies of the Saturday Evening Post from late 1930 to early 1931 in one of the walls.
I found one front-page article from the Chicago Herald & Tribune from October of 1930 most interesting. The article unabashedly fixed the blame for the depression on Prohibitionists, giving the stock market crash a complete pass and even calling it a necessary event to keep people employed. After all, if people make too much money, they'll stop working!
And it also said, and I quote, that the practice of prohibition "has vastly increased insanity", when it was supposed to reduce it.
Perspective makes a lot of difference.
I found one front-page article from the Chicago Herald & Tribune from October of 1930 most interesting. The article unabashedly fixed the blame for the depression on Prohibitionists, giving the stock market crash a complete pass and even calling it a necessary event to keep people employed. After all, if people make too much money, they'll stop working!
And it also said, and I quote, that the practice of prohibition "has vastly increased insanity", when it was supposed to reduce it.
Perspective makes a lot of difference.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
The Feingold Effect
Senator Feingold was in Steven's Point this morning to give a speech for the college Democrats. I was in attendance because whether I like him or not, he's half of our senatorial representation and he sits on some pretty interesting committees. I realize that riding my bike through winter weather at 8 AM to see him speak makes me look like a serious hippie, but bear with me.
The speech was pretty locality-oriented and wasn't very interesting. Something about how Obama supports minimum pricing for milk and McCain doesn't, an implication about how he can't trust a republican president with oversight of the intelligence agencies. He'll be giving this speech in something like twelve campuses across Wisconsin.
And if turnout was anything like it was today, that will get his message out to about 612 people. Today's speech drew a crowd just short of sixty.
The speech was pretty locality-oriented and wasn't very interesting. Something about how Obama supports minimum pricing for milk and McCain doesn't, an implication about how he can't trust a republican president with oversight of the intelligence agencies. He'll be giving this speech in something like twelve campuses across Wisconsin.
And if turnout was anything like it was today, that will get his message out to about 612 people. Today's speech drew a crowd just short of sixty.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Media's Murder Bias
Its pretty obvious that the media leans to the mainstream left these days. It's a very widespread and heavily documented public perception, and interestingly enough, it has been for a while. But going through my news crawl today really spells out just how media does their slanting. Their methods aren't particularly diverse.
Just repeating the hate, instead of saying it themselves, absolves them of actually being called hateful; they let other people do that and write up a story, and you're just covering it. Exhibit A: Sarah Palin Effigy Hung in Halloween Display.
As illustrated, the public is big enough that someone will always step forward to do the jackass dance and make the rest of us look like morons. But, it's only speech and that of course should be protected, however asinine. If it's not liberals in West Hollywood joking about the murder of republican candidates, then it's Exhibit B: Skinheads' Obama Assassination Plot Foiled. See how one seems whimsical and the other seems terrifying? Well, let's look at the horror of that skinhead plot more closely:
I think that's probably a safe bet. White tuxedos are rarely a good idea. But that's not going to stop media outlets from piling on the scare to make you think that this hate is more mainstream than it is. Even FOX joined in on this, knowing that you're going to read the headline and not the part where they're a couple of rednecks who want to dress up like The Penguin and execute a plot that would be beneath even his least-skilled henchmen. But the effect of the stories is that thinking about Palin's lynching seems whimsical, while thinking about Obama's seems shocking and horrible. That's not an accident; the stories are from the same source and don't run without an editor's approval. The impact of each story is intentional.
Just repeating the hate, instead of saying it themselves, absolves them of actually being called hateful; they let other people do that and write up a story, and you're just covering it. Exhibit A: Sarah Palin Effigy Hung in Halloween Display.
As illustrated, the public is big enough that someone will always step forward to do the jackass dance and make the rest of us look like morons. But, it's only speech and that of course should be protected, however asinine. If it's not liberals in West Hollywood joking about the murder of republican candidates, then it's Exhibit B: Skinheads' Obama Assassination Plot Foiled. See how one seems whimsical and the other seems terrifying? Well, let's look at the horror of that skinhead plot more closely:
The men planned to wear white tuxedos and top hats during the assassination attempt, which would have involved driving as fast as they could toward Obama and shooting him from the windows of the car.
The plot did not appear to be very advanced or sophisticated, the court documents showed.
I think that's probably a safe bet. White tuxedos are rarely a good idea. But that's not going to stop media outlets from piling on the scare to make you think that this hate is more mainstream than it is. Even FOX joined in on this, knowing that you're going to read the headline and not the part where they're a couple of rednecks who want to dress up like The Penguin and execute a plot that would be beneath even his least-skilled henchmen. But the effect of the stories is that thinking about Palin's lynching seems whimsical, while thinking about Obama's seems shocking and horrible. That's not an accident; the stories are from the same source and don't run without an editor's approval. The impact of each story is intentional.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Still Alive
I'll be back in Mad-town this weekend, to celebrate Joy's birthday and to get the stuff that I forgot to prep for winter.
I"m working on a longer piece about what Obama & Biden's foreign policy may look like, especially with the recent advocacy by Colin Powell. Stay tuned, it should be interesting.
I"m working on a longer piece about what Obama & Biden's foreign policy may look like, especially with the recent advocacy by Colin Powell. Stay tuned, it should be interesting.
Monday, October 20, 2008
The Left's Great Challenge
Without looking like a defeatist, odds are good that Obama is going to win in November, despite McCain's possible resurgence. If he does, then the left has the white house and maybe the congress, and something else that they haven't had in eight years, and I'm going to go right ahead and say that they won't know what to do with it.
They'll have legitimacy, and with legitimacy comes responsibility, which the left has been abjectly averse to for the past eight years, preferring to trade it for bitterness and overt intolerance. As long as they were a minority, they had an excuse for it as far as political considerations go; parties lacking power tend to resort to methods of gaining attention that are outside the official system; protests and general activism. The left has been all about it for the past eight years, by no means rivaling the social upheaval surrounding the Vietnam war but emulating it in many respects and going beyond it in others.
Over the past eight years, these people have been in their own narrative element. Conspiracy theorists have reigned like no other time in history. Violent leftists from third-world nations have been glorified on a baffling scale (and stylistically have even merged with Obama's merchandise). Antiwar protests have been prominent and occasionally actively violent. Participants have claimed everything from governmental suppression of their 1st amendment rights to, just occasionally, full-tilt physical abuse at the hands of what they saw as Republican cronies and operatives. This isn't the culture that's driving all of Obama's constituency by any measure, but it is a foundational culture on the left that will have newfound legitimacy come November.
They'll be facing a fundamental problem in being an insurgent party: because they will be responsible, they can't rely on the same old tactics of misinformation and minority tactics. Their credibility will matter, their maturity will be expected, and their moderation will be needed instead of their typical triple-dose of bile. If they can't deliver on those expectations, they're going to keep having problems and their success might be short-lived. But that all remains to be seen.
We'll have to see if there's going to be any truth to Obama's claims to being "post-partisan". Personally, there's nothing I'd like more than to strip politics of the unabashed division and supercharged, fuel-injected rhetoric that has gripped it for so long. I just have my concerns as to whether Obama and the Left are the people who are going to usher in a new era of reasonability and a decent respect for the opinions of mankind. They haven't really established a history of it.
They'll have legitimacy, and with legitimacy comes responsibility, which the left has been abjectly averse to for the past eight years, preferring to trade it for bitterness and overt intolerance. As long as they were a minority, they had an excuse for it as far as political considerations go; parties lacking power tend to resort to methods of gaining attention that are outside the official system; protests and general activism. The left has been all about it for the past eight years, by no means rivaling the social upheaval surrounding the Vietnam war but emulating it in many respects and going beyond it in others.
Over the past eight years, these people have been in their own narrative element. Conspiracy theorists have reigned like no other time in history. Violent leftists from third-world nations have been glorified on a baffling scale (and stylistically have even merged with Obama's merchandise). Antiwar protests have been prominent and occasionally actively violent. Participants have claimed everything from governmental suppression of their 1st amendment rights to, just occasionally, full-tilt physical abuse at the hands of what they saw as Republican cronies and operatives. This isn't the culture that's driving all of Obama's constituency by any measure, but it is a foundational culture on the left that will have newfound legitimacy come November.
They'll be facing a fundamental problem in being an insurgent party: because they will be responsible, they can't rely on the same old tactics of misinformation and minority tactics. Their credibility will matter, their maturity will be expected, and their moderation will be needed instead of their typical triple-dose of bile. If they can't deliver on those expectations, they're going to keep having problems and their success might be short-lived. But that all remains to be seen.
We'll have to see if there's going to be any truth to Obama's claims to being "post-partisan". Personally, there's nothing I'd like more than to strip politics of the unabashed division and supercharged, fuel-injected rhetoric that has gripped it for so long. I just have my concerns as to whether Obama and the Left are the people who are going to usher in a new era of reasonability and a decent respect for the opinions of mankind. They haven't really established a history of it.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
"Red Dawn" and Slate
The Instapundit pointed out an article at Slate that compares the movie Red Dawn to America in Iraq, with the reviewer taking the opinion that America looks a lot like the Soviets do in that movie, and the roles are reversed.
Fair enough, that definitely happens in the movie. But rather than keep playing that same tired old "Us versus Them" card, if you look closer the movie is actually pretty instructive on how insurgencies work. It's not about fascism, despite the reviewer's claims. What's actually being represented in the ruthlessness of the Wolverines is desperation.
The point that's being madein the movie is one that's visible in Iraq now, Northern Ireland under Stormont, and about a thousand other places on earth where political disenfranchisement is so extreme that oppressed minorities don't see any other way to preserve themselves and their interests but force of arms. In Red Dawn, the Wolverines are absolutely dedicated, from the very beginning, to their own preservation. Fighting the Soviets is actually a sort of afterthought after months in hiding, when they realize they're still dependent upon society for a number of things, and even if they preserve themselves, the predations will be carried out against the helpless of their own ranks. The authoritarianism is a requirement of survival.
Watching it now, I think one of the greatest points of the movie is not that America is the bad guy, or that America has become what the Soviets were. The biggest point, by far, is the display of Americans becoming insurgents not to defend their way of life, but to regain it from an oppressive aggressor. It acknowledges that human psyches work the same way in any country, and it actually provides a very useful perspective about insurgencies and how they see themselves: as standalones in a world gone completely off the deep end. Their characteristics - fanaticism, ruthlessness, asymmetrical warfare, and occasionally the appearance of insanity - serve a larger strategic purpose in holding the group together and wearing down the will of the dominant power.
The insurgents are at first merely scared, angry kids, but they're hardened by
the viciousness of the Soviets. Seeing nothing to lose, they become suicidal
terrorists who assassinate, bomb civilian targets, gleefully murder wounded and
captive Russians, and eventually martyr themselves in theatrical, insane ways.
Fair enough, that definitely happens in the movie. But rather than keep playing that same tired old "Us versus Them" card, if you look closer the movie is actually pretty instructive on how insurgencies work. It's not about fascism, despite the reviewer's claims. What's actually being represented in the ruthlessness of the Wolverines is desperation.
In my memory, Red Dawn celebrated America and its virtues. But its guiding
ideology is actually fascism. The only politician in Red Dawn, the mayor of
Calumet, is a quisling who rats out his neighbors for execution. His son, the
student-body president, turns out to be the traitorous Wolverine, seeking
immediate capitulation to the invaders and eventually leading the Soviets right
to the band's hideout. Swayze takes command of the Wolverines by force, forbids
a vote about whether to surrender, and demands that his fellow guerillas obey
him without question.
The point that's being madein the movie is one that's visible in Iraq now, Northern Ireland under Stormont, and about a thousand other places on earth where political disenfranchisement is so extreme that oppressed minorities don't see any other way to preserve themselves and their interests but force of arms. In Red Dawn, the Wolverines are absolutely dedicated, from the very beginning, to their own preservation. Fighting the Soviets is actually a sort of afterthought after months in hiding, when they realize they're still dependent upon society for a number of things, and even if they preserve themselves, the predations will be carried out against the helpless of their own ranks. The authoritarianism is a requirement of survival.
Watching it now, I think one of the greatest points of the movie is not that America is the bad guy, or that America has become what the Soviets were. The biggest point, by far, is the display of Americans becoming insurgents not to defend their way of life, but to regain it from an oppressive aggressor. It acknowledges that human psyches work the same way in any country, and it actually provides a very useful perspective about insurgencies and how they see themselves: as standalones in a world gone completely off the deep end. Their characteristics - fanaticism, ruthlessness, asymmetrical warfare, and occasionally the appearance of insanity - serve a larger strategic purpose in holding the group together and wearing down the will of the dominant power.
Fun With Numbers
I just finished my Physics test, and I have some issues.
First among them is, surprisingly enough, the way a professor with a doctorate in astrophysics counts her problems. In the review, she said there would be three problems to solve on the test that wouldn't be multiple choice. The difficulty with that is that when test time came today, there were indeed three questions - but each had an A, B, and C part that required you to solve something else - they weren't integrated questions.
That's actually nine questions, so far as I know. It's only frustrating because solving them made me late for my Tai Chi class, and if you're late to the dojo, you don't get in. I haven't missed that class until today. That's issue number two, just to maintain a correct count. It seems to be a difficult practice for lots of folks these days.
Between congress and my professors, I might need to make counting a continuing theme of this blog.
First among them is, surprisingly enough, the way a professor with a doctorate in astrophysics counts her problems. In the review, she said there would be three problems to solve on the test that wouldn't be multiple choice. The difficulty with that is that when test time came today, there were indeed three questions - but each had an A, B, and C part that required you to solve something else - they weren't integrated questions.
That's actually nine questions, so far as I know. It's only frustrating because solving them made me late for my Tai Chi class, and if you're late to the dojo, you don't get in. I haven't missed that class until today. That's issue number two, just to maintain a correct count. It seems to be a difficult practice for lots of folks these days.
Between congress and my professors, I might need to make counting a continuing theme of this blog.
Notes to Myself
Good news first, is that on my first test on Bureaucracy I got a 93. I dropped some points because I didn't feel the need to include an example of administrative tunnel vision, but naturally I won't do that again. The example he was looking for was the FHA's tunnel vision on foreclosure rates, and how that contributed to suburban expansion and may have even exacerbated the racial divide. Fair enough - this teacher gets examples, even if he doesn't ask for them.
Haven't got the results of my American Policymaking test back yet, but it was pretty straight- forward and I'm pretty unconcerned about it. It was multiple-choice, which means two things: it caters to the lowest form of knowledge (recognition), and the speed with which you can complete one generally drives the absolute number of questions up, which of course drives the cost of making a mistake down. I'm sure I did well.
Energy and the Environment test is today, in about an hour. I'm totally unconcerned about this one too, because it's really a 10th grade physics class masquerading as a college course. No sweat. I might even enjoy it.
One of these days I'm going to take some pictures of this place, so I can do a photoblog about a typical Friday up here. The same eight anti-war protesters occupy the same bus stop with the same signs every Friday as I ride downtown to work. I usually wave because we're all regulars here, might just as well be friendly. At least they're a quiet bunch, no annoying chants or anything. There's not enough of them for that.
I'll be heading back to Madison this weekend to get winter stuff, because it looks to be coming in fast up here. Maybe I'll get some antennae for my TV so I can watch the news, if they're still there.
I also hope to have a pretty decent review of the last presidential debate, or at least one important and revealing exchange, up within a day or so. I realize that the economy is in full panic mode, but that doesn't change that there are other important things out there. I fully agree with Politico that it was an awful, horrendously uninspiring debate on both sides when neither candidate has any excuse for being uninspiring. We're making history on all fronts right now, and both men came across as canned. But canned in a way that's been left out overnight so that there's not even fizz; just the lukewarm vanilla flavor of day-old root beer and shame.
There's no energy in either of these guys. One wonders if over a year of campaigning hasn't taken the fire out of them. First guy to get a second wind earns himself a point swing, how does that sound for incentive?
Haven't got the results of my American Policymaking test back yet, but it was pretty straight- forward and I'm pretty unconcerned about it. It was multiple-choice, which means two things: it caters to the lowest form of knowledge (recognition), and the speed with which you can complete one generally drives the absolute number of questions up, which of course drives the cost of making a mistake down. I'm sure I did well.
Energy and the Environment test is today, in about an hour. I'm totally unconcerned about this one too, because it's really a 10th grade physics class masquerading as a college course. No sweat. I might even enjoy it.
One of these days I'm going to take some pictures of this place, so I can do a photoblog about a typical Friday up here. The same eight anti-war protesters occupy the same bus stop with the same signs every Friday as I ride downtown to work. I usually wave because we're all regulars here, might just as well be friendly. At least they're a quiet bunch, no annoying chants or anything. There's not enough of them for that.
I'll be heading back to Madison this weekend to get winter stuff, because it looks to be coming in fast up here. Maybe I'll get some antennae for my TV so I can watch the news, if they're still there.
I also hope to have a pretty decent review of the last presidential debate, or at least one important and revealing exchange, up within a day or so. I realize that the economy is in full panic mode, but that doesn't change that there are other important things out there. I fully agree with Politico that it was an awful, horrendously uninspiring debate on both sides when neither candidate has any excuse for being uninspiring. We're making history on all fronts right now, and both men came across as canned. But canned in a way that's been left out overnight so that there's not even fizz; just the lukewarm vanilla flavor of day-old root beer and shame.
There's no energy in either of these guys. One wonders if over a year of campaigning hasn't taken the fire out of them. First guy to get a second wind earns himself a point swing, how does that sound for incentive?
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
Kos, and Surviving the Election Holocaust
I realize that the people over at Kos aren't supposed to run around saying sane things. That would be absurd, and frankly there's no room in the world for that. But I will say that this entry is particularly stunning for it's depth.
It's perhaps the single most hyperactive "gotcha" moment I've ever read. Coming from Kos it's not surprising to see the term "unhinged" redefined, but when I spend my time alone, at the back of the Student Union with my own mocha, hunching over it and cursing under my breath about assheaded partisan politics, its exactly that sort of thing that I'm probably cursing about. If it's not that, then it's my lack of central heating, and I may at any given moment be arguing with myself about which I hate more.
The point is that this sort of thing is exactly why I don't really fully engage in election politics. On both sides, they're the political equivalent of that one guy who doses up on speed when everyone else is out for a decent night of drinking: people want to get into it, but they just don't want their hearts to race and they'd like to maintain control over the volume and pace of their speech.
Or at least, I would. And I'm really genuinely bad at it when something sets me off, and those things multiply by several thousand when you start dealing in election politics. They redefine partisanship in ways that would make God and Satan give eachother sideways glances.
At this point in the debate (as in all points of it, actually), there is no gray area. You're a Nazi or a Jew, a Slaver or a Liberator, The Colonel or a Chicken, Autobot or Decepticon. And for most people, the only thing that matters is who can come up with the most obscene attack on the other's character, true or not, because the public generally doesn't care if you correct it. Obama is a muslim, and Palin charges for rape kits.
Now make an educated choice in this environment. You can't. There's so much static that if you participate in that level of debate, you won't hear anything useful because nobody's broadcasting anything useful. You'll be making choices based on voices you think you heard in the midst of white noise.
I can't wait til the election is over, no matter who wins. The last seven years have so badly divided the public that it is a real difficulty to speak with people who disagree with you in any kind of rational, respectful manner. Jefferson would agree with me that this is a horribly destructive state of affairs. You're supposed to be able to talk with your neighbors. You're supposed to be able to speak to eachother to mutually see what each party needs and wants and more than that, to realize that your opponents aren't roving packs of Sharpteeth from The Land Before Time.
They're people. They want, ultimately, all the things you want: peace, security, stability, freedom. The disagreement is only about what to do to get those things. But we will not have that sort of realization on any meaningful scale in this environment.
It's perhaps the single most hyperactive "gotcha" moment I've ever read. Coming from Kos it's not surprising to see the term "unhinged" redefined, but when I spend my time alone, at the back of the Student Union with my own mocha, hunching over it and cursing under my breath about assheaded partisan politics, its exactly that sort of thing that I'm probably cursing about. If it's not that, then it's my lack of central heating, and I may at any given moment be arguing with myself about which I hate more.
The point is that this sort of thing is exactly why I don't really fully engage in election politics. On both sides, they're the political equivalent of that one guy who doses up on speed when everyone else is out for a decent night of drinking: people want to get into it, but they just don't want their hearts to race and they'd like to maintain control over the volume and pace of their speech.
Or at least, I would. And I'm really genuinely bad at it when something sets me off, and those things multiply by several thousand when you start dealing in election politics. They redefine partisanship in ways that would make God and Satan give eachother sideways glances.
At this point in the debate (as in all points of it, actually), there is no gray area. You're a Nazi or a Jew, a Slaver or a Liberator, The Colonel or a Chicken, Autobot or Decepticon. And for most people, the only thing that matters is who can come up with the most obscene attack on the other's character, true or not, because the public generally doesn't care if you correct it. Obama is a muslim, and Palin charges for rape kits.
Now make an educated choice in this environment. You can't. There's so much static that if you participate in that level of debate, you won't hear anything useful because nobody's broadcasting anything useful. You'll be making choices based on voices you think you heard in the midst of white noise.
I can't wait til the election is over, no matter who wins. The last seven years have so badly divided the public that it is a real difficulty to speak with people who disagree with you in any kind of rational, respectful manner. Jefferson would agree with me that this is a horribly destructive state of affairs. You're supposed to be able to talk with your neighbors. You're supposed to be able to speak to eachother to mutually see what each party needs and wants and more than that, to realize that your opponents aren't roving packs of Sharpteeth from The Land Before Time.
They're people. They want, ultimately, all the things you want: peace, security, stability, freedom. The disagreement is only about what to do to get those things. But we will not have that sort of realization on any meaningful scale in this environment.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Micromanagement
In my pseudoscientific management course that I took at MATC, among the other questionable principles they threw at prospective leaders was the idea that managers typically have "a high tolerance for ambiguity".
Last week on Monday, my manager explained all of the night lead's duties to me verbally while I took notes. On Tuesday, she emailed me a Word document detailing all of the night lead's duties, and read it aloud to me from her own paper copy. I printed that so I would be able to reference it quickly. On Wednesday, she gave me my own paper copy and emailed me the Word document again, and asked if I had any questions, prior to verbally repeating everything that was in the document. Thursday, nothing happened. But on Friday, she provided me with another printed copy, then an "updated" email copy of that same document (the only thing updated was two words regarding my break time), and a printed copy of that. Then she read it aloud to me again, pointing to where the words that she was reading appeared on my screen.
That means I have about five written copies of the same information if you include my notes, and three electronic copies.
Having reiterated several times that I had no questions on the night lead procedures, she encouraged me to call her at her house once she had gone home to resolve anything that I didn't think was clear. Now to be clear, at no point was she ever even slightly condescending about any of this or even marginally impolite. She was being very nice and exceptionally patient, and explained to me that I have been doing impressively well, and that these aren't remedial courses because I'm doing badly.
The night lead procedures aren't difficult. I have to watch for incoming claim emails and forward them on to get set up. I have to clear up any remaining internet claims. I have to do mail runs every hour on the hour. I have to take calls for assistance from other night employees. My break is at 6:15pm every night. This is as far from rocket science as cliches can get.
But because of all this, it's pretty clear that my manager hasn't got that typical ambiguity tolerance. For whatever reason, valid or invalid, it's psychologically important for her not to ensure that I know these things, but to ensure that she says them enough. It's not a matter of her educating me, but it seems much more as if she's trying to reassure herself. The constant reiteration is really a measure against her own anxiety. As long as everything I do matches what she does to a T, then she will have trained me right.
It's not as if her job is on the line if I don't do well. But for her to know that she's doing well, she has to give me absolutely no wiggle room to do anything wrong, no matter how minimal the consequences of a mistake are. Compliance is as close as she can get to confidence.
The difficulty with that is that by forcing compliance through reiteration of commands to people who know what to do, you lay your own insecurities bare by advertising them, and people don't like insecure leaders; they look weak and dependent. I would know; when word got around that my old supervisor at Best Buy peed sitting down because his wife didn't like the mess, any credibility that he may have had went right out the window. As you might imagine. The point is, the more you give to your own insecurities, the more you take from people's confidence in you. Take enough, and they won't trust you when things get hard.
I think the major thing preventing me from having a micromanaging personality is that it takes so damn much effort. Between that, and the repetitive motion of all that copying and pasting of work instructions, I just don't think I'm cut out for it.
Last week on Monday, my manager explained all of the night lead's duties to me verbally while I took notes. On Tuesday, she emailed me a Word document detailing all of the night lead's duties, and read it aloud to me from her own paper copy. I printed that so I would be able to reference it quickly. On Wednesday, she gave me my own paper copy and emailed me the Word document again, and asked if I had any questions, prior to verbally repeating everything that was in the document. Thursday, nothing happened. But on Friday, she provided me with another printed copy, then an "updated" email copy of that same document (the only thing updated was two words regarding my break time), and a printed copy of that. Then she read it aloud to me again, pointing to where the words that she was reading appeared on my screen.
That means I have about five written copies of the same information if you include my notes, and three electronic copies.
Having reiterated several times that I had no questions on the night lead procedures, she encouraged me to call her at her house once she had gone home to resolve anything that I didn't think was clear. Now to be clear, at no point was she ever even slightly condescending about any of this or even marginally impolite. She was being very nice and exceptionally patient, and explained to me that I have been doing impressively well, and that these aren't remedial courses because I'm doing badly.
The night lead procedures aren't difficult. I have to watch for incoming claim emails and forward them on to get set up. I have to clear up any remaining internet claims. I have to do mail runs every hour on the hour. I have to take calls for assistance from other night employees. My break is at 6:15pm every night. This is as far from rocket science as cliches can get.
But because of all this, it's pretty clear that my manager hasn't got that typical ambiguity tolerance. For whatever reason, valid or invalid, it's psychologically important for her not to ensure that I know these things, but to ensure that she says them enough. It's not a matter of her educating me, but it seems much more as if she's trying to reassure herself. The constant reiteration is really a measure against her own anxiety. As long as everything I do matches what she does to a T, then she will have trained me right.
It's not as if her job is on the line if I don't do well. But for her to know that she's doing well, she has to give me absolutely no wiggle room to do anything wrong, no matter how minimal the consequences of a mistake are. Compliance is as close as she can get to confidence.
The difficulty with that is that by forcing compliance through reiteration of commands to people who know what to do, you lay your own insecurities bare by advertising them, and people don't like insecure leaders; they look weak and dependent. I would know; when word got around that my old supervisor at Best Buy peed sitting down because his wife didn't like the mess, any credibility that he may have had went right out the window. As you might imagine. The point is, the more you give to your own insecurities, the more you take from people's confidence in you. Take enough, and they won't trust you when things get hard.
I think the major thing preventing me from having a micromanaging personality is that it takes so damn much effort. Between that, and the repetitive motion of all that copying and pasting of work instructions, I just don't think I'm cut out for it.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Veep Debate Blog
Live Portion
Before I say anything else, I have to say that I came in late. I haven't heard it all, won't be able to tell you who won. Nobody will actually be able to anyway, but least of all me.
I have to hand it to Palin though, she sounds confident enough and she seems to be taking this debate suprisingly well. I haven't seen her speak before this, and I admit to being impressed. Extra points for using Reagan's line from his Carter debate, that took moxie. The shining city reference felt a little bit canned though. She looks right at the camera every time too, rather than the studio audience. The Wall Street Journal said she might do that, and that she's underrated when it comes to televised debate.
.
Biden is much less charismatic (his maleness might have something to do with that), but he's also doing a good job. I don't hate him, even though I hold a grudge against him for his Iraq Partitioning idea. He's playing up his grassroots a little hard, but he is pretty genuine when he talks about family, and I do appreciate that. Even if he has multiple apparent misunderstandings of the VP's Constitutional role.
The only person doing a bad job is whatever churl is handling the damn microphones. Get it together, man.
Palin looks like she has cold coffee-stomach type jitters. It has a very specific sound and body language that she's definitely displaying. Not the same as outright nervousness, but maybe she should cut back on the pre-debate caffeine.
Postmortem
Palin seemed to stumble a lot more than Biden, but that stands to reason. She's sort of new to this, and Biden's done all this for a damn long time. She had some pretty nervous giggles and I wish she didn't, and I wish her delivery was cleaner, because Biden really showed her up when it comes to delivery, even if he had some distressing misrepresentations of the Constitution.
I'm actually willing to let that go though, obviously the VP presides over the senate even if there's no tie vote, Biden knows that because he's been in the senate for a damn while now. He knows, even if he failed to communicate.
Palin's "energy independence" ideas ring just a shade hollow though, because there's nobody who's not for that. It's just a matter of timetable and method of pursuit, and frankly I wouldn't drill in ANWR if it were up to me. High gas prices are pushing alternative and efficient energy technologies, and undercutting the prices five to ten years from now means disincentivizing that market shift and slowing the research of those technologies. But, to be fair, in 5-10 years the cost of energy provision could possibly be so high that we could safely drill in ANWR without substantially slowing alternative and efficient energy research. I can see both sides of that, so the rhetoric doesn't go very far from either person without a fairly involved analysis and projection of what the energy market is going to look like in 5-10 years. Which I admit that I don't have. So nevermind, I guess.
There's no winner here, but I'll say the same thing that folks said about the first McCain-Obama speech: Obama didn't lose, and that's a sort of win for a newbie. Palin didn't lose, and that's a sort of win.
Here's the thing. Palin came across as a little bit generic as a conservative the same way Obama comes across (at least to me) as a generic liberal. Tossing out Reagan might get her in with a certain demographic of voters on the right, but it may not be the best thing to grab the centrists. The same goes for Obama and his constant Kennedy references.
Then again, grabbing the center was never the point of Palin's candidacy. McCain can do that well enough on his own, and early on he polled badly with the mainline conservatives for being a RINO. Palin is supposed to round those votes up by being the conservative.
America has it easy this year. No matter what happens, we either break the color barrier or the gender barrier, both desirable things. Everyone gets to be a progressive, which is part of the genius of Palin's candidacy: it defuses some of that Angry Left rhetoric against what they see as the racist, androcentric Conservative class. Ted Rall must be furious.
My only advice to the McCain campaign: let Palin out of the box more. She did just fine, cut her some slack and let her get comfortable with talking policy. Remember all that "Obama's just empty rhetoric" stuff that went around? The same stuff is going around about Palin, and so far rightfully so. Fix that. A VP without policy abilities is not an asset to your campaign.
And my advice to the Obama campaign: Put Biden back in the box. Palin, with coffee-stomach jitters in her only VP debate, held her own against your own big policy gun. Put Biden to work on some policy stuff, because he'll be good at it, and let Obama handle the rhetoric and appearances from here on out. He's much, much better at it, and Palin can't hold the line against him.
Note to both campaigns: the public has completely finished with the rhetoric. Start honestly debating policy and drop the gotchas, or you're going to start fostering public distrust in the election process, and that's going to bring out the Paultards again, with their damn Bill Hicks quotes. Put some substance down, or lose the audience.
Before I say anything else, I have to say that I came in late. I haven't heard it all, won't be able to tell you who won. Nobody will actually be able to anyway, but least of all me.
I have to hand it to Palin though, she sounds confident enough and she seems to be taking this debate suprisingly well. I haven't seen her speak before this, and I admit to being impressed. Extra points for using Reagan's line from his Carter debate, that took moxie. The shining city reference felt a little bit canned though. She looks right at the camera every time too, rather than the studio audience. The Wall Street Journal said she might do that, and that she's underrated when it comes to televised debate.
.
Biden is much less charismatic (his maleness might have something to do with that), but he's also doing a good job. I don't hate him, even though I hold a grudge against him for his Iraq Partitioning idea. He's playing up his grassroots a little hard, but he is pretty genuine when he talks about family, and I do appreciate that. Even if he has multiple apparent misunderstandings of the VP's Constitutional role.
The only person doing a bad job is whatever churl is handling the damn microphones. Get it together, man.
Palin looks like she has cold coffee-stomach type jitters. It has a very specific sound and body language that she's definitely displaying. Not the same as outright nervousness, but maybe she should cut back on the pre-debate caffeine.
Postmortem
Palin seemed to stumble a lot more than Biden, but that stands to reason. She's sort of new to this, and Biden's done all this for a damn long time. She had some pretty nervous giggles and I wish she didn't, and I wish her delivery was cleaner, because Biden really showed her up when it comes to delivery, even if he had some distressing misrepresentations of the Constitution.
I'm actually willing to let that go though, obviously the VP presides over the senate even if there's no tie vote, Biden knows that because he's been in the senate for a damn while now. He knows, even if he failed to communicate.
Palin's "energy independence" ideas ring just a shade hollow though, because there's nobody who's not for that. It's just a matter of timetable and method of pursuit, and frankly I wouldn't drill in ANWR if it were up to me. High gas prices are pushing alternative and efficient energy technologies, and undercutting the prices five to ten years from now means disincentivizing that market shift and slowing the research of those technologies. But, to be fair, in 5-10 years the cost of energy provision could possibly be so high that we could safely drill in ANWR without substantially slowing alternative and efficient energy research. I can see both sides of that, so the rhetoric doesn't go very far from either person without a fairly involved analysis and projection of what the energy market is going to look like in 5-10 years. Which I admit that I don't have. So nevermind, I guess.
There's no winner here, but I'll say the same thing that folks said about the first McCain-Obama speech: Obama didn't lose, and that's a sort of win for a newbie. Palin didn't lose, and that's a sort of win.
Here's the thing. Palin came across as a little bit generic as a conservative the same way Obama comes across (at least to me) as a generic liberal. Tossing out Reagan might get her in with a certain demographic of voters on the right, but it may not be the best thing to grab the centrists. The same goes for Obama and his constant Kennedy references.
Then again, grabbing the center was never the point of Palin's candidacy. McCain can do that well enough on his own, and early on he polled badly with the mainline conservatives for being a RINO. Palin is supposed to round those votes up by being the conservative.
America has it easy this year. No matter what happens, we either break the color barrier or the gender barrier, both desirable things. Everyone gets to be a progressive, which is part of the genius of Palin's candidacy: it defuses some of that Angry Left rhetoric against what they see as the racist, androcentric Conservative class. Ted Rall must be furious.
My only advice to the McCain campaign: let Palin out of the box more. She did just fine, cut her some slack and let her get comfortable with talking policy. Remember all that "Obama's just empty rhetoric" stuff that went around? The same stuff is going around about Palin, and so far rightfully so. Fix that. A VP without policy abilities is not an asset to your campaign.
And my advice to the Obama campaign: Put Biden back in the box. Palin, with coffee-stomach jitters in her only VP debate, held her own against your own big policy gun. Put Biden to work on some policy stuff, because he'll be good at it, and let Obama handle the rhetoric and appearances from here on out. He's much, much better at it, and Palin can't hold the line against him.
Note to both campaigns: the public has completely finished with the rhetoric. Start honestly debating policy and drop the gotchas, or you're going to start fostering public distrust in the election process, and that's going to bring out the Paultards again, with their damn Bill Hicks quotes. Put some substance down, or lose the audience.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Micromanagers
My boss sent me an email today, just to let me know how she phrases a particular type of email that she sends all the time. Before she sent me that email letting me know how she phrases it, she spent no less than three minutes telling me how she phrases those emails. Not the why, just the how.
I realize that three minutes doesn't sound like a long time. But just sit there for three minutes, and do nothing.
See that? Boring and annoying at the same time, right?
Good thing they pay me at work, or I just might not go. And with any luck at all, she'll become more hands-off as I gain competency. I can't tell how it's going to work either way at the moment.
I don't know if I'll ever really understand the impulses that would drive someone to even want to micromanage. The more hands-on you are with the people you're supposed to be supervising, the more liable you are for their mistakes. And, as they build competency and you keep telling them the same things, you're going to breed resentment. And, in an environment where the magnitude of the mistakes that you can make - and the consequences of those mistakes in terms of work added - are muted, there's not much point to that.
That is to say, more resentment than just telling people what to do all day long will, which is quite a bit, depending on how much respect those coworkers have for you. And odds are, if you micromanage, that level isn't very high to begin with.
I realize that three minutes doesn't sound like a long time. But just sit there for three minutes, and do nothing.
See that? Boring and annoying at the same time, right?
Good thing they pay me at work, or I just might not go. And with any luck at all, she'll become more hands-off as I gain competency. I can't tell how it's going to work either way at the moment.
I don't know if I'll ever really understand the impulses that would drive someone to even want to micromanage. The more hands-on you are with the people you're supposed to be supervising, the more liable you are for their mistakes. And, as they build competency and you keep telling them the same things, you're going to breed resentment. And, in an environment where the magnitude of the mistakes that you can make - and the consequences of those mistakes in terms of work added - are muted, there's not much point to that.
That is to say, more resentment than just telling people what to do all day long will, which is quite a bit, depending on how much respect those coworkers have for you. And odds are, if you micromanage, that level isn't very high to begin with.
The Public is Always Right
Ron Paul taught me to trust Libertarians just as much as I trust everyone else with a party subscription. They certainly aren't immune to the occasional case of the crazies.
Over at Instapundit there's a poll asking whether or not congress will pass bail-out legislation this week. I think its pretty likely, and I'm not really crushed that they didn't pass the other one on Monday. Nobody was in love with it; the whips didn't even bother rounding up votes, everyone who had to make a decision was scared senseless and anyone who didn't was angry about the whole thing, somehow.
Conservatives didn't like the idea of mucking around with the free market that much. Democrats balked at giving the Treasury Secretary as much power as he wanted. The public, as could be expected, didn't see their interests represented because they are shortsighted, panicked, and it wasn't adequately explained to them just what the hell was at stake.
As far as the commenters over at that Instapundit poll, they pretty much spell out how basically everyone in the public feels about it: they didn't trust it, and won't trust the next one unless there's some serious bipartisan support, as well as a very clear description of why doing nothing is a bad idea. I'd probably start with "778-point drop and $1.2 trillion in equity lost". I'd follow on that for every "Wall Street Fat-Cat" that loses his or her job, three other supporting jobs are lost.
That can turn into a lot to have on your conscience for the sake of ideology.
Over at Instapundit there's a poll asking whether or not congress will pass bail-out legislation this week. I think its pretty likely, and I'm not really crushed that they didn't pass the other one on Monday. Nobody was in love with it; the whips didn't even bother rounding up votes, everyone who had to make a decision was scared senseless and anyone who didn't was angry about the whole thing, somehow.
Conservatives didn't like the idea of mucking around with the free market that much. Democrats balked at giving the Treasury Secretary as much power as he wanted. The public, as could be expected, didn't see their interests represented because they are shortsighted, panicked, and it wasn't adequately explained to them just what the hell was at stake.
As far as the commenters over at that Instapundit poll, they pretty much spell out how basically everyone in the public feels about it: they didn't trust it, and won't trust the next one unless there's some serious bipartisan support, as well as a very clear description of why doing nothing is a bad idea. I'd probably start with "778-point drop and $1.2 trillion in equity lost". I'd follow on that for every "Wall Street Fat-Cat" that loses his or her job, three other supporting jobs are lost.
That can turn into a lot to have on your conscience for the sake of ideology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)