Tuesday, November 23, 2010
North and South Korea exchange fire
A brief update that I'm sure you're all aware of: North Korea fired artillery on Yeonpyeong Island while South Korean marines were engaged in a military exercise there. It sounds like two ROK marines were killed and they returned fire on the North with unknown effect. So far the verbal response by the South Korean president Lee Myung-Bak has been very aggressive. It is my opinion that South Korea should respond to this attack in the way they should have responded to the sinking of the Cheonan-- a decisive and disproportionate counter-attack (e.g. destroy North Korea's naval capabilities and/or decisive strikes on North Korea's artillery forces). It is also my opinion that the United States should be right along side in this response to reaffirm our commitments to our South Korean allies.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Bullet Trains, Light Metro, Mass Transit and America
This article from time.com about Obama's funding of high-speed rail tickles one of my secret ambitions: competitive mass transit in America. Whoah, whoah, whoah, you're saying... You're thinking I'm a small government guy. I've said I'm no republican but that I am definitely conservative economically. The thing is, I've established that I have no problem paying the government in exchange for certain services, and infrastructure is one of those things. I realize that in a laissez-faire capitalist economy roads and rails still get built by entities that need them at some point, and get maintained... somehow... At least in the interest of the market. I just don't quite buy it... I actually believe there are some questions the free market fails to answer in a way. As far as I'm concerned mass transit is one of those things.
If you try to frame a mass transit solution as a normal business problem you run into a sort of paradox. It only works if you have enough riders to make it efficient and you only get enough riders when the service level reaches a point that entices people to become riders. A capitalist would say that the market would select that solution if it made sense, but I'm convinced that any reasonable business man would look at the investment and tell you to take a hike. The market economy didn't build the Interstate Highway System (Uncle Sam did), but I'm sure glad we have it now. I feel the same way about mass transit, and personally very much favor rail.
I spent a year of college living in Tokyo, Japan, and it made me a firm believer in the social benefits of efficient mass transit. I'm guessing there are few or no cities with a more extensive rail network than Tokyo. If you're interested, here is a rail map of Tokyo in English. Then there's intercity train service in Japan, from the famed bullet trains (actually called Shinkansen) to commuter electric trains on shorter routes. And if that's not interesting enough, the thing I found truly staggering was that smaller Japanese cities and towns also have rail service... Admittedly that's easier in a country as densely populated as Japan, if compared to the vast spaces Americans live in. But maybe it sets a dreamer to dreamin' a little bit.
As it happens, I remember the day that Obama announced he'd fund high speed rail investment. Initially it elicited a sort of anti-socialist/anti-big government groan from me... But I read the article twice. I stared intently at the maps they released. I dug a little deeper into internet resources to research what they were thinking. It set me to dreamin'. Ever since I can't help but spend some small amount of time each day to imagining better rail service (intercity and local service) in America, and despite my capitalist proclivities I think government resources are the best route to getting it.
If you try to frame a mass transit solution as a normal business problem you run into a sort of paradox. It only works if you have enough riders to make it efficient and you only get enough riders when the service level reaches a point that entices people to become riders. A capitalist would say that the market would select that solution if it made sense, but I'm convinced that any reasonable business man would look at the investment and tell you to take a hike. The market economy didn't build the Interstate Highway System (Uncle Sam did), but I'm sure glad we have it now. I feel the same way about mass transit, and personally very much favor rail.
I spent a year of college living in Tokyo, Japan, and it made me a firm believer in the social benefits of efficient mass transit. I'm guessing there are few or no cities with a more extensive rail network than Tokyo. If you're interested, here is a rail map of Tokyo in English. Then there's intercity train service in Japan, from the famed bullet trains (actually called Shinkansen) to commuter electric trains on shorter routes. And if that's not interesting enough, the thing I found truly staggering was that smaller Japanese cities and towns also have rail service... Admittedly that's easier in a country as densely populated as Japan, if compared to the vast spaces Americans live in. But maybe it sets a dreamer to dreamin' a little bit.
As it happens, I remember the day that Obama announced he'd fund high speed rail investment. Initially it elicited a sort of anti-socialist/anti-big government groan from me... But I read the article twice. I stared intently at the maps they released. I dug a little deeper into internet resources to research what they were thinking. It set me to dreamin'. Ever since I can't help but spend some small amount of time each day to imagining better rail service (intercity and local service) in America, and despite my capitalist proclivities I think government resources are the best route to getting it.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Book Review: Good to Great
Title: Good to Great
Author: Jim Collins
Reviewed Format: Hardcover
Pages: 260
Rating: 5 Stars
Review: This is a great book. I went in a little skeptical... When everyone talks about how great a book is (and when the executive office of your employer is said to carry it around in their uh... knapsacks?) it always makes me question the hype and take a closer look than I maybe otherwise would. Great expectations, and all that. Well, this is a great book, but I'm not sure how many people actually get the message when they read the thing based on my own conversations with and observations of people who tout its message.
Jim Collins and a team of 20 other researchers affiliated with the University of Colorado Graduate School with the stated mission of studying companies which had established a baseline of merely good results (market average) but suddenly underwent some kind of seemingly major transformation and became great companies that sustained results for at least 15 years after the transformation event. The team made a very conscious decision to ignore their own biases and preconceptions and try to analyze their data and findings objectively-- what they found shocked them (and me).
I think the collective "we" (Jim Collins, et al., included) imagined that they'd find companies helmed by rockstar CEOs, radical transition plans, excellent management of said transition, and drastic transformations. What they found instead-- and in EVERY ONE of their eleven subjects (the only found eleven companies that met their good-to-great criteria)-- was that the transformation was actually a very starting one that gained more and more momentum as the becoming-great company pushed on their figurative flywheel (one of the books central concept). The book has seven chapters each about a specific concept, but several of them really cover a lot of the same ground and I would say there's really three central lessons to be had from this book. They are:
1. Level 5 Leadership - humble leaders who direct all of their sizable ambition towards building a great company... And hire people like them with a focus on values instead of on skills. (The book categorizes these as "disciplined thought.")
2. Hedgehog Concept - understand what your company can be great at and focus only on those things. Do not tolerate people who don't understand this or what it implies. (The book categorizes these as "disciplined action.")
3. A Culture of Discipline - When you've worked on the above to concepts the next part should be easy, but is essentially a business culture that becomes determined or even fanatic about hiring the right kind of people for the job and adhering to the Hedgehog Concept.
What it all really boils down to, is getting the right people on the bus AND the wrong people off the bus and the rest of it will tend to fall in place. Of course the book itself has numerous examples and data to support the findings of the research teams' findings and is well enough written to be a clear and easy read. The attribute I found most compelling was the fact that the research turned up the same factors and steps for every one of their subject companies so as far as data goes it was extremely clear to me that they are really on to something. As I consider the actions and performance of the company I work for, it has become impossible to view them without constantly evaluating them against the findings of this book. I very highly recommend this book for anyone interested in what makes some companies great. (5 stars)
Author: Jim Collins
Reviewed Format: Hardcover
Pages: 260
Rating: 5 Stars
Review: This is a great book. I went in a little skeptical... When everyone talks about how great a book is (and when the executive office of your employer is said to carry it around in their uh... knapsacks?) it always makes me question the hype and take a closer look than I maybe otherwise would. Great expectations, and all that. Well, this is a great book, but I'm not sure how many people actually get the message when they read the thing based on my own conversations with and observations of people who tout its message.
Jim Collins and a team of 20 other researchers affiliated with the University of Colorado Graduate School with the stated mission of studying companies which had established a baseline of merely good results (market average) but suddenly underwent some kind of seemingly major transformation and became great companies that sustained results for at least 15 years after the transformation event. The team made a very conscious decision to ignore their own biases and preconceptions and try to analyze their data and findings objectively-- what they found shocked them (and me).
I think the collective "we" (Jim Collins, et al., included) imagined that they'd find companies helmed by rockstar CEOs, radical transition plans, excellent management of said transition, and drastic transformations. What they found instead-- and in EVERY ONE of their eleven subjects (the only found eleven companies that met their good-to-great criteria)-- was that the transformation was actually a very starting one that gained more and more momentum as the becoming-great company pushed on their figurative flywheel (one of the books central concept). The book has seven chapters each about a specific concept, but several of them really cover a lot of the same ground and I would say there's really three central lessons to be had from this book. They are:
1. Level 5 Leadership - humble leaders who direct all of their sizable ambition towards building a great company... And hire people like them with a focus on values instead of on skills. (The book categorizes these as "disciplined thought.")
2. Hedgehog Concept - understand what your company can be great at and focus only on those things. Do not tolerate people who don't understand this or what it implies. (The book categorizes these as "disciplined action.")
3. A Culture of Discipline - When you've worked on the above to concepts the next part should be easy, but is essentially a business culture that becomes determined or even fanatic about hiring the right kind of people for the job and adhering to the Hedgehog Concept.
What it all really boils down to, is getting the right people on the bus AND the wrong people off the bus and the rest of it will tend to fall in place. Of course the book itself has numerous examples and data to support the findings of the research teams' findings and is well enough written to be a clear and easy read. The attribute I found most compelling was the fact that the research turned up the same factors and steps for every one of their subject companies so as far as data goes it was extremely clear to me that they are really on to something. As I consider the actions and performance of the company I work for, it has become impossible to view them without constantly evaluating them against the findings of this book. I very highly recommend this book for anyone interested in what makes some companies great. (5 stars)
Kevin Costner... apparently comes through on oil spill techonology???
CNN Article
We all had a good-natured laugh when news broke that Kevin Costner, of all people, was going to be presenting his company's oil spill clean up technology to congress. Turns out we should've taken the man seriously... BP has decided to order 32 of these machines and apparently they will allow cleanup crews to get oil out of the water much more quickly and efficiently. It's a surprise, to be sure, but evidently Costner's brother is a scientist and they've been working on this since the 1990s. So, in any case, well done, Kevin Costner... And, uh, keep doing your part to stave off Waterworld.
We all had a good-natured laugh when news broke that Kevin Costner, of all people, was going to be presenting his company's oil spill clean up technology to congress. Turns out we should've taken the man seriously... BP has decided to order 32 of these machines and apparently they will allow cleanup crews to get oil out of the water much more quickly and efficiently. It's a surprise, to be sure, but evidently Costner's brother is a scientist and they've been working on this since the 1990s. So, in any case, well done, Kevin Costner... And, uh, keep doing your part to stave off Waterworld.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Japan's PM Hatoyama Resigns & Thoughts on US Military Presence on Okinawa
It was announced today that Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama is resigning his post most likely due to his failure to uphold is promise to remove the US military presence from Okinawa. He did try to address the issue but ultimately decided that the base would stay. It's a reasonable question to consider if he made the decision due to pressure from the US, Japanese security concerns, or concerns specific to conditions on Okinawa itself.
The US Military Presence on Okinawa is very extensive. According to wikipedia there are 14 seperate installations covering 233 sq. km, which is about 18% of the main island. Of the 40,000 US personnel stationed in Japan, around 2/3 are on Okinawa. The overwhelming majority of Okinawans are opposed to the military presence due to environmental and noise concerns, occasional crime by US servicemen, and other such factors. I can hardly blame them... From the numbers above it would seem like you'd be hard pressed to look anywhere without seeing the US military.
Does it make sense to move the military assets? Probably does. The US has interest in military presence in Japan for geographic reasons... Japan commands a lot of the access to the Pacific from the Asian side. Japanese interest lies in the US military presence reducing their own expenditure on defense to an extremely low level. Okinawa also has some interest in the presence, I think, as I'd imagine the troops contribute a fair amount to their economy (though I don't really know that for sure). Finally, all parties should be keenly interested in maintaining one of the world's most important military alliances, so some solution should be found. It seems to me like the military assets should be redistributed to other parts of Japan (or throughout the Pacific Theatre). Based on Okinawa's location, it's probably important maintain an airbase there, but it seems to me like the rest of the bases could go.
The US Military Presence on Okinawa is very extensive. According to wikipedia there are 14 seperate installations covering 233 sq. km, which is about 18% of the main island. Of the 40,000 US personnel stationed in Japan, around 2/3 are on Okinawa. The overwhelming majority of Okinawans are opposed to the military presence due to environmental and noise concerns, occasional crime by US servicemen, and other such factors. I can hardly blame them... From the numbers above it would seem like you'd be hard pressed to look anywhere without seeing the US military.
Does it make sense to move the military assets? Probably does. The US has interest in military presence in Japan for geographic reasons... Japan commands a lot of the access to the Pacific from the Asian side. Japanese interest lies in the US military presence reducing their own expenditure on defense to an extremely low level. Okinawa also has some interest in the presence, I think, as I'd imagine the troops contribute a fair amount to their economy (though I don't really know that for sure). Finally, all parties should be keenly interested in maintaining one of the world's most important military alliances, so some solution should be found. It seems to me like the military assets should be redistributed to other parts of Japan (or throughout the Pacific Theatre). Based on Okinawa's location, it's probably important maintain an airbase there, but it seems to me like the rest of the bases could go.
Lunar Solar Powerplant
Courtesy of this gizmodo post I've learned of a Japanese firm, Shimizu, that would like to use robots to fabricate a solar power plant they call Luna Ring. The Luna Ring would be built by robots using mostly material from the moon itself and cover the equator of the moon with solar panels to collect the power of sunlight without concerns about weather conditions or the atmosphere that reduces solar panel efficiency here on earth. Luna Ring would then beam the power to earth via lasers or microwaves.
The idea is a little similar to one of my favorite pet energy concepts: space-based solar power, which I think offers one of the better chances for reasonably clean and renewable power on earth. It may even be easier or cheaper to accomplish when you consider the fact that you won't have to lift materials into orbit. In any case, it's merely concept now, and we'll have to keep working towards this and other forms of power (fuel cells or fusion power or something else) until one becomes practical enough that we can ween ourselves off of our fossil fuel addiction.
The idea is a little similar to one of my favorite pet energy concepts: space-based solar power, which I think offers one of the better chances for reasonably clean and renewable power on earth. It may even be easier or cheaper to accomplish when you consider the fact that you won't have to lift materials into orbit. In any case, it's merely concept now, and we'll have to keep working towards this and other forms of power (fuel cells or fusion power or something else) until one becomes practical enough that we can ween ourselves off of our fossil fuel addiction.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Clarification on Korea and China
I had an opportunity to talk to Dusty a bit last night regarding the escalating tensions between North and South Korea, and it became clear that I'd been unclear on what I meant by referring to China as the wildcard in the situation... I will try to clear up what I think about China's role in Korea here.
North Korea is something of a vassal state to China. Without China's support, North Korea would almost surely collapse. I believe most of North Korea's energy and food come from across the Yalu River. What, then, is North Korea to China? Well, historically it was a military and ideological ally. When the Korean War went against the North Koreans, China invaded Korea to push back UN mandated forces resulting in setbacks and a stalemate that would eventually define the DMZ as it is today. North Korea, ideologically speaking, in the old days anyway, was another Communist country. On paper, I suppose, both are still Communist, though I think neither really has much to do with practical Communism anymore. In China, Communism started its decline when Deng Xiaoping declared that "to get rich is glorious." You can't actually be rich if you're living in a Communist state. I'm less clear when North Korea transitioned from a Communist state to it's current status as a cult-of-personality dictator built entirely around an almost religious fanaticism for Kim Jong Il (Or his father, Kim Il Sung, before him).
So, what's in it for China today? That's what I keep asking myself. The modern post-Cold War geopolitical landscape sees a single superpower (the US) with maybe three in development (EU, Russia, China). China is no longer a Communist country, by ideology, and it seems to me they've adopted a statist, state capitalist, dictatorship-- something not entirely unlike the facist regimes before World War II. It remains to be seen whether state capitalism is a sustainable system, or if the Chinese government can maintain its stranglehold on liberty as their populace develops wealth... But the overriding theme in Chinese decision-making seems pointed at economic and technological development. Given that, I can't really understand why they remain committed to the continued existence of North Korea. I understand that North Korea creates a buffer between China and South Korea, a state with a sizable American military presence and a powerful military of its own. I understand that there are still some ideological and historical reasons for China's continued support of North Korea (not least of which should be their characterization of the Korean War as a war to repel American aggression in China)...
But on the other hand, I have to think there's a lot of upside in it for China if the Koreas were to be unified under "southern" rule. North Korea would quickly become a growth market opportunity for any investor interested in exploting what should be rapid development of North Koreans (see East German example). It should create positive economic growth right on China's doorstep, and one that China could participate in if they played their cards right. I think at some point, that calculation should outweigh the geopolitical benefits of a troublesome ally (who very notably has a negative economic impact on the region) standing between you an American influence. I hope some portions of the Chinese government are beginning to think so, as I think that's the only long-term peaceful resolution to the divide on the Korean Peninsula.
North Korea is something of a vassal state to China. Without China's support, North Korea would almost surely collapse. I believe most of North Korea's energy and food come from across the Yalu River. What, then, is North Korea to China? Well, historically it was a military and ideological ally. When the Korean War went against the North Koreans, China invaded Korea to push back UN mandated forces resulting in setbacks and a stalemate that would eventually define the DMZ as it is today. North Korea, ideologically speaking, in the old days anyway, was another Communist country. On paper, I suppose, both are still Communist, though I think neither really has much to do with practical Communism anymore. In China, Communism started its decline when Deng Xiaoping declared that "to get rich is glorious." You can't actually be rich if you're living in a Communist state. I'm less clear when North Korea transitioned from a Communist state to it's current status as a cult-of-personality dictator built entirely around an almost religious fanaticism for Kim Jong Il (Or his father, Kim Il Sung, before him).
So, what's in it for China today? That's what I keep asking myself. The modern post-Cold War geopolitical landscape sees a single superpower (the US) with maybe three in development (EU, Russia, China). China is no longer a Communist country, by ideology, and it seems to me they've adopted a statist, state capitalist, dictatorship-- something not entirely unlike the facist regimes before World War II. It remains to be seen whether state capitalism is a sustainable system, or if the Chinese government can maintain its stranglehold on liberty as their populace develops wealth... But the overriding theme in Chinese decision-making seems pointed at economic and technological development. Given that, I can't really understand why they remain committed to the continued existence of North Korea. I understand that North Korea creates a buffer between China and South Korea, a state with a sizable American military presence and a powerful military of its own. I understand that there are still some ideological and historical reasons for China's continued support of North Korea (not least of which should be their characterization of the Korean War as a war to repel American aggression in China)...
But on the other hand, I have to think there's a lot of upside in it for China if the Koreas were to be unified under "southern" rule. North Korea would quickly become a growth market opportunity for any investor interested in exploting what should be rapid development of North Koreans (see East German example). It should create positive economic growth right on China's doorstep, and one that China could participate in if they played their cards right. I think at some point, that calculation should outweigh the geopolitical benefits of a troublesome ally (who very notably has a negative economic impact on the region) standing between you an American influence. I hope some portions of the Chinese government are beginning to think so, as I think that's the only long-term peaceful resolution to the divide on the Korean Peninsula.
Belated Memorial Day Observance
I'm a day late on this, apologies. I celebrated Memorial Day by doing nothing related to our servicemen, as I suspect most other Americans did. I went camping with my brothers and their families and we had a nice time. I came home on Sunday to hear Andy Rooney giving his own opinion on how best to honor our veterans and he suggested that we should do it every day rather than on a day contrived to give us a long weekend. I almost never like what Andy Rooney has to say, but I think he's right about this. Now, having said that, I'm going to pay homage (even if belated) to the contrived day in question and offer thanks to the many sacrifices that our servicemen (and servicewomen) have made and continue to make to ensure that the American dream of liberty can continue.
Book Review: Guns, Germs, and Steel
Title: Guns, Germs,and Steel
Author: Jared Diamond
Reviewed Format: Trade Paperback
Pages: 471
Rating: 4 Stars
Review: I came into reading this book with very high expectations and finished just a little bit underwhelmed. I'd seen the impressive PBS miniseries of the same name narrated by Jared Diamond himself, so I was familiar with the premise, and had several enthusiastic recommendations from people whose opinions I trust. Perhaps the bar I set was a little too high, but either way, while I liked the book it didn't quite satisfy me. Guns, Germs, and Steel also won a Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction, for whatever that's worth.
The book is an impressive collection of information supporting Jared Diamond's theories on why it came to pass that Eurasian civilization dominated the modern world in terms of power, wealth, and technology. His theory is pretty strongly deterministic, meaning that on the very large scale environmental/geographical factors allowed people to get a leg up on their neighbors because of where they were as opposed to who they are. I, personally, think (and have thought for most of my adult life) that this makes a great deal of sense. In my own travels I've never come to the conclusion that people are physically or mentally different in any significant way. In terms of proving his point in the very broadest terms, particularly during pre-historical times, Diamond does a great job of making his point.
The book itself is laid out as a series of thought experiments where Diamond posits something and then thinks his way through them given known historical, archaeological, and linguistic factors. He begins (and often returns) to Polynesia and New Guinea as interesting test cases-- situations where racially/ethnically identical people end up in different environments and alternatively regress, stay the same, or prosper significantly. The historical details themselves are fascinating and make the book worth reading, no matter what you think of his conclusions. For all of his though experiments, save one (his theory on the development of government and complex social systems), Diamond was convincing enough to sway my thinking his way.
Stylistically, Diamond is a decent writer. I didn't have to re-read sentences or paragraphs too often, and I thought the level of granularity in his historical examples were sufficient to make his point without overburdening the reader. Diamond also had the integrity to point out the weaknesses in his theories or findings throughout the book and detailing the opposing points of view so that the reader could decide which point of view they preferred.
So that was all pretty positive, right? Why didn't I give this book five stars? I guess it's because I really didn't get anything out of it. I agreed with his point of view concerning the rise of civilizations in antiquity before I read the book, but was curious to see how he would determine why European powers rather than China came to dominate the modern world... And he mostly shied away from it. I'm not sure it's entirely fair to criticize because I'm not sure the mechanisms Diamond is describing (very broad strokes of the evolution of civilizations) can be realistically applied to specific countries over relatively short periods of time. In any case, if the topic interests you even a little, I must recommend this book. (4 stars)
Author: Jared Diamond
Reviewed Format: Trade Paperback
Pages: 471
Rating: 4 Stars
Review: I came into reading this book with very high expectations and finished just a little bit underwhelmed. I'd seen the impressive PBS miniseries of the same name narrated by Jared Diamond himself, so I was familiar with the premise, and had several enthusiastic recommendations from people whose opinions I trust. Perhaps the bar I set was a little too high, but either way, while I liked the book it didn't quite satisfy me. Guns, Germs, and Steel also won a Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction, for whatever that's worth.
The book is an impressive collection of information supporting Jared Diamond's theories on why it came to pass that Eurasian civilization dominated the modern world in terms of power, wealth, and technology. His theory is pretty strongly deterministic, meaning that on the very large scale environmental/geographical factors allowed people to get a leg up on their neighbors because of where they were as opposed to who they are. I, personally, think (and have thought for most of my adult life) that this makes a great deal of sense. In my own travels I've never come to the conclusion that people are physically or mentally different in any significant way. In terms of proving his point in the very broadest terms, particularly during pre-historical times, Diamond does a great job of making his point.
The book itself is laid out as a series of thought experiments where Diamond posits something and then thinks his way through them given known historical, archaeological, and linguistic factors. He begins (and often returns) to Polynesia and New Guinea as interesting test cases-- situations where racially/ethnically identical people end up in different environments and alternatively regress, stay the same, or prosper significantly. The historical details themselves are fascinating and make the book worth reading, no matter what you think of his conclusions. For all of his though experiments, save one (his theory on the development of government and complex social systems), Diamond was convincing enough to sway my thinking his way.
Stylistically, Diamond is a decent writer. I didn't have to re-read sentences or paragraphs too often, and I thought the level of granularity in his historical examples were sufficient to make his point without overburdening the reader. Diamond also had the integrity to point out the weaknesses in his theories or findings throughout the book and detailing the opposing points of view so that the reader could decide which point of view they preferred.
So that was all pretty positive, right? Why didn't I give this book five stars? I guess it's because I really didn't get anything out of it. I agreed with his point of view concerning the rise of civilizations in antiquity before I read the book, but was curious to see how he would determine why European powers rather than China came to dominate the modern world... And he mostly shied away from it. I'm not sure it's entirely fair to criticize because I'm not sure the mechanisms Diamond is describing (very broad strokes of the evolution of civilizations) can be realistically applied to specific countries over relatively short periods of time. In any case, if the topic interests you even a little, I must recommend this book. (4 stars)
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Getting a Little Scary on the Korean Peninsula
Nearly lost among headline's of Lee DeWyze's American Idol victory and (albeit significant and important) news on the BP oil spill in the Gulf, is what I think is the biggest development on the Korean Peninsula I can remember. Almost exactly two months ago the 1200t South Korean corvette Cheonan broke in two and sank after an explosion at her stern. 46 of her 104 man crew were killed. An investigation was performed and despite hopes to the contrary, when the wreckage was raised the presence of remnants of a North Korean torpedo have confirmed that the Cheonan was deliberately sunk by hostile action (in this case suspected to have been a torpedo delivered by a North Korean Yeono-class minisub).
This is a big deal. It's not a case of a bit of sabre-rattling gone a little too far such as the "Second Battle of Yeonpyeong." In that battle, or the others like it, both sides were pushing each other's buttons in disputed waters and shooting broke out. In this case, a DPRK minisub evidently stalked the Cheonan before the decision was made to fire on the ROK corvette. At any time in history, between any two countries, this is reasonable cause for war-- and the two countries in question in this case are already at war (still). The weirdest part is, I can't figure what the reasoning behind it was. Usually Kim Jong Il seems to be perpetrating a game of brinkmanship wherein he shakes something up or pushes some agreement to the point of strain and then lets ROK or the US or whomever buy him off. In this incident I can't see what he'd be looking to gain or why any usual gain would be worth the risk of such a bold move. It begs the question, how monolithic is North Korea? I'm not sure which is more scary, a North Korea dominated by a generally unstable and seemingly batshit-crazy Kim Jong Il, or a North Korea being fought over by several extreme factions with competing goals and resources. One angle that's been troubling my mind ever since it was reported that his health is failing, what if he's decided he should be the one to unify Korea and he feels time running out?
From what I can gather from the news, South Koreans are angry. And well they should be! Can you imagine the response from the government and the populace if some one sank a US naval vessel? That raises the question of a response. In my opinion, if this was "brinkmanship," then you've already gone over the brink. Appeasing Kim hasn't ever gotten us anywhere (though it did eventually lead to North Korea conducting two nuclear tests), and if he's resorting to overt military action to try to get whatever it is he wants then you certainly cannot countenance giving it to him.
Any military response would have to be exceuted very carefully. I'm pretty confident that any general engagement between allied ROK and US forces versus an outdated, outmoded, and probably underfed DPRK military would be very one-sided. Such an engagement needn't necessarily be "general," as you could, through any number of mechnaisms, probably sink a North Korean sub or five without it necessarily looking like it was you-- but a strategy like that could very easily and quickly escalate into a general engagement. The problem with a general engagement, beyond the fact that war is almost always an undesirable outcome, is that Seoul is too close to the border with the North, and DPRK artillery assets could be used to bombard Seoul for at least a short while before it would be neutralized by allied response-- and that could cause lots of damage and many civilian casualties.
In any case, it's not a war yet, but I feel like there are a lot of scenarios that could turn it into one. I hope it can be resolved via some reasonably peaceful approach that doesn't involve appeasement... But as long as an apparent madman like Kim Jong Il is in power, the North will be unpredictable and dangerous.
This is a big deal. It's not a case of a bit of sabre-rattling gone a little too far such as the "Second Battle of Yeonpyeong." In that battle, or the others like it, both sides were pushing each other's buttons in disputed waters and shooting broke out. In this case, a DPRK minisub evidently stalked the Cheonan before the decision was made to fire on the ROK corvette. At any time in history, between any two countries, this is reasonable cause for war-- and the two countries in question in this case are already at war (still). The weirdest part is, I can't figure what the reasoning behind it was. Usually Kim Jong Il seems to be perpetrating a game of brinkmanship wherein he shakes something up or pushes some agreement to the point of strain and then lets ROK or the US or whomever buy him off. In this incident I can't see what he'd be looking to gain or why any usual gain would be worth the risk of such a bold move. It begs the question, how monolithic is North Korea? I'm not sure which is more scary, a North Korea dominated by a generally unstable and seemingly batshit-crazy Kim Jong Il, or a North Korea being fought over by several extreme factions with competing goals and resources. One angle that's been troubling my mind ever since it was reported that his health is failing, what if he's decided he should be the one to unify Korea and he feels time running out?
From what I can gather from the news, South Koreans are angry. And well they should be! Can you imagine the response from the government and the populace if some one sank a US naval vessel? That raises the question of a response. In my opinion, if this was "brinkmanship," then you've already gone over the brink. Appeasing Kim hasn't ever gotten us anywhere (though it did eventually lead to North Korea conducting two nuclear tests), and if he's resorting to overt military action to try to get whatever it is he wants then you certainly cannot countenance giving it to him.
Any military response would have to be exceuted very carefully. I'm pretty confident that any general engagement between allied ROK and US forces versus an outdated, outmoded, and probably underfed DPRK military would be very one-sided. Such an engagement needn't necessarily be "general," as you could, through any number of mechnaisms, probably sink a North Korean sub or five without it necessarily looking like it was you-- but a strategy like that could very easily and quickly escalate into a general engagement. The problem with a general engagement, beyond the fact that war is almost always an undesirable outcome, is that Seoul is too close to the border with the North, and DPRK artillery assets could be used to bombard Seoul for at least a short while before it would be neutralized by allied response-- and that could cause lots of damage and many civilian casualties.
In any case, it's not a war yet, but I feel like there are a lot of scenarios that could turn it into one. I hope it can be resolved via some reasonably peaceful approach that doesn't involve appeasement... But as long as an apparent madman like Kim Jong Il is in power, the North will be unpredictable and dangerous.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Link to something I found interesting about the oil spill in the Gulf
I thought this was pretty cool... Gizmodo's link to a CNN video about a few proposed solutions to cleaning up the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. That's really a disaster down there, and I'm struggling to see how we're practically going to fix it any time soon.
Triumphant Return from The Japans
I'm back, even if some of you didn't know I'd gone! I took a business trip for my huge corporate employer to Japan over the last week. I didn't have a lot of warning that I was going which is why I didn't post a "see ya's all later kinda blog" before heading out. I even made a weak effort between the very long working days and numerous drinkings of Japanese beer to update the blog with an "I'm in Japan!!!!" kinda post, but was defeated by the intermittent wireless in the hotel.
Anyway, for what it's worth, I've been to Japan several times (including a year-long stint as a college exchange students), so it's a place I'm pretty familiar with... I like it there a lot and enjoy any chance to go that I can get. This trip took me to Kobe, a small city on Shikoku, and a smaller industrial city near Nagoya (or maybe more accurately near Toyota). I had been to Kobe (maybe known to you as the site of the devastating Great Hanshin Earthquake of 1995) once before during high school for a volleyball tournament, and I think that's probably when I started my love affair with things Japanese that resulted in my aforementioned college exchange there-- interestingly enough, I don't recall discussing the earthquake much or noticing a lot of damage or anything, even though I was there around one year later. Kobe is a pretty cool city with some neat features (the Ijinkan-- barbarian houses-- left over from when Kobe was a trade port for early European traders are an example) and some cool places to hang out.
I got to travel with three other guys, who all turned out to be decent travel companions. Work travel in Japan was fairly fascinating as factories there are very different from our own. There's a ton of automation, and the Japanese are able to cram a decent process into an unbelievably tiny space. Supplier relationships are also executed in a very different way-- kind of paternalistic and definitely not arms length. I think there's some things we could learn from each other.
This blog has been brought to you by mild jetlag, which saw me awake at ~4:30 AM and has given me a bit of extra time before work.
Anyway, for what it's worth, I've been to Japan several times (including a year-long stint as a college exchange students), so it's a place I'm pretty familiar with... I like it there a lot and enjoy any chance to go that I can get. This trip took me to Kobe, a small city on Shikoku, and a smaller industrial city near Nagoya (or maybe more accurately near Toyota). I had been to Kobe (maybe known to you as the site of the devastating Great Hanshin Earthquake of 1995) once before during high school for a volleyball tournament, and I think that's probably when I started my love affair with things Japanese that resulted in my aforementioned college exchange there-- interestingly enough, I don't recall discussing the earthquake much or noticing a lot of damage or anything, even though I was there around one year later. Kobe is a pretty cool city with some neat features (the Ijinkan-- barbarian houses-- left over from when Kobe was a trade port for early European traders are an example) and some cool places to hang out.
I got to travel with three other guys, who all turned out to be decent travel companions. Work travel in Japan was fairly fascinating as factories there are very different from our own. There's a ton of automation, and the Japanese are able to cram a decent process into an unbelievably tiny space. Supplier relationships are also executed in a very different way-- kind of paternalistic and definitely not arms length. I think there's some things we could learn from each other.
This blog has been brought to you by mild jetlag, which saw me awake at ~4:30 AM and has given me a bit of extra time before work.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Absurd, Hilarious and Pretty Scary Actually.
Amit sent me this MSN moneycentral article today at work as we discussed the huge crap the market took today. So, in case you don't want to link over there, it's possible that the minipanic today (which included the largest intraday market decline since 1987) may have been triggered by a trader at Citigroup fat fingering a sell order. The story goes that he hit "b" instead of "m" when trying to place a $16M sell order on Proctor & Gamble. This caused P&G stock to plummet from $62/share to $37/share in practically no-time. Luckily for P&G, NYSE has some built in technology to watch for something like this, and basically slowed down transactions of P&G for a short time (1-2 minutes) while things were sorted out.
I read this and laughed a lot... Immediately took the article around to coworkers to make fun of the poor SOB who happened to have a really really bad day at work today. In all seriousness though, this may or may not have caused the intraday dip before the end-of-day rebound-- I'm guessing the Greek financial disaster also had something to say about it... But it's incredible to imagine that whatever system the poor Citigroup trader was using doesn't ask you to confirm a 16 BILLION dollar trade request. I'd personally like to think better controls were in place since for at least short time major damage was done to at least one company and perhaps the market on the whole.
I read this and laughed a lot... Immediately took the article around to coworkers to make fun of the poor SOB who happened to have a really really bad day at work today. In all seriousness though, this may or may not have caused the intraday dip before the end-of-day rebound-- I'm guessing the Greek financial disaster also had something to say about it... But it's incredible to imagine that whatever system the poor Citigroup trader was using doesn't ask you to confirm a 16 BILLION dollar trade request. I'd personally like to think better controls were in place since for at least short time major damage was done to at least one company and perhaps the market on the whole.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Trying to Make Some Sense out of the Tea Party Movement
Is anyone else out there struggling a little with how to feel about the Tea Party Movement? I have this feeling it's a bit natural to struggle with what appears to be an actual grass roots movement... It actually has no center and no leading authorities. Anyone can go to a "Tea Party" but you can't really go to the Tea Party. The Tea Partiers have certainly gotten some attention in the media so it's hard to miss that they exist, and I think they've presented the media outlets (all of whom seem to show a certain bias one way or the other) with a little bit of a problem-- they too appear to have no idea how they should address the movement.
I decided to do some research on the thing, and with me that means a quick jaunt over to wikipedia. Their article indicates that it's a populist movement that arose early in 2009 in response to the 2008 bailouts and 2009 stimulus package. In general, the article states, the movement appears to be focused on constitutionally limited government, fiscal responsibility, and free markets. I am a very big fan of all three of these ideas.
On the other hand, the article goes on to discuss some of the controversy surrounding the movement. They indicate that some believe the movement is actually an example of "astroturfing." Other than the carpet that was put down in the Astrodome, I had no idea what that meant. So, I went back to the wikipedian well and their article on astroturfing defines the practice as, "political, advertising, or public relations campaigns that are formally planned by an organization, but are disguised as spontaneous, popular "grassroots" behavior." I'm worried that even if the movement isn't an example of astroturfing, that it could be easily co-opted and turned into an example of astroturfing. The recent appearance of Sarah Palin (who I don't think believes in those things the movement is supposed to be focused on) in the town I live in, with a lot of "Tea Party" sentiment, has reinforced that particular fear.
In the end, I don't want the Tea Party Movement to turn out to be the crazy end of the Republic Party in disguise-- or other unsavory elements: homophobic, xenophobic, racist, or otherwise. This is because I like the Tea Party rhetoric and am encouraged that apparently a lot of other Americans do too.
I decided to do some research on the thing, and with me that means a quick jaunt over to wikipedia. Their article indicates that it's a populist movement that arose early in 2009 in response to the 2008 bailouts and 2009 stimulus package. In general, the article states, the movement appears to be focused on constitutionally limited government, fiscal responsibility, and free markets. I am a very big fan of all three of these ideas.
On the other hand, the article goes on to discuss some of the controversy surrounding the movement. They indicate that some believe the movement is actually an example of "astroturfing." Other than the carpet that was put down in the Astrodome, I had no idea what that meant. So, I went back to the wikipedian well and their article on astroturfing defines the practice as, "political, advertising, or public relations campaigns that are formally planned by an organization, but are disguised as spontaneous, popular "grassroots" behavior." I'm worried that even if the movement isn't an example of astroturfing, that it could be easily co-opted and turned into an example of astroturfing. The recent appearance of Sarah Palin (who I don't think believes in those things the movement is supposed to be focused on) in the town I live in, with a lot of "Tea Party" sentiment, has reinforced that particular fear.
In the end, I don't want the Tea Party Movement to turn out to be the crazy end of the Republic Party in disguise-- or other unsavory elements: homophobic, xenophobic, racist, or otherwise. This is because I like the Tea Party rhetoric and am encouraged that apparently a lot of other Americans do too.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
My (Over-)Simplified Model of Government
The government, in its most basic form, is just another business-- or maybe more accurately a not-for-profit. Its customers (the citizens of a nation) employ it to provide certain services or products. The citizens (customers) convert their wealth into government revenue by paying taxes and fees back to the government (the business). The real questions about government then become how nimbly can the government adjust to the changes in the service profile their citizens require, how well can the government provide those services, and will the government be able to fund the activity through a level of tax collection acceptable to their citizens.
In such a model government employees exist only to carry out the supply of services to a citizen... So why then is government structure important? Well, government structures and organizations are going to be more or less effective in understanding the needs and expectations of their citizens. The ideal structure would provide the citizen-desired services exactly when they are wanted and at least cost. The other side of the coin is how are revenues are collected by the government, or to put it another way, tax structure. To my way of thinking taxes should serve only one purpose: to deliver the necessary coin to pay for the services we want. Any other defined objective for a tax is going to drive inefficiency into the system and waste resources.
So, my over-simplified solution is to start discussing things in terms of what I described above. I believe that if we all approached government in this way, we better establish government goals, better define the expenditures required to achieve those goals, and then execute. In future posts I will explore what services I believe the government should provide and why, as well as how I believe they should collect taxes to secure the revenue needed to provide those services.
In such a model government employees exist only to carry out the supply of services to a citizen... So why then is government structure important? Well, government structures and organizations are going to be more or less effective in understanding the needs and expectations of their citizens. The ideal structure would provide the citizen-desired services exactly when they are wanted and at least cost. The other side of the coin is how are revenues are collected by the government, or to put it another way, tax structure. To my way of thinking taxes should serve only one purpose: to deliver the necessary coin to pay for the services we want. Any other defined objective for a tax is going to drive inefficiency into the system and waste resources.
So, my over-simplified solution is to start discussing things in terms of what I described above. I believe that if we all approached government in this way, we better establish government goals, better define the expenditures required to achieve those goals, and then execute. In future posts I will explore what services I believe the government should provide and why, as well as how I believe they should collect taxes to secure the revenue needed to provide those services.
CNN article about setiQuest
I read a brief opinion piece on cnn.com called What if There's Somebody Else Out There? I enjoy such articles, in general, and cnn.com delivers from time to time with some really weird-ass space/tech articles. My all-time favorite was called something like "Scientists Believe Language will Evolve on Space Colonies." I think that's probably true, but it was so out of left-field that seeing it on CNN's front page had me laughing out loud in the cube at work. So, anyway, I think the question of extraterrestrial life is completely fascinating, and I was interested in an unexpected and random cnn.com front page article exploring the idea. My excitement grew a bit when I realized the article was written by a ranking scientist at the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI), named Jill Tarter. Jill has just been awarded the TED award (no idea really what that is, but the article seems to indicate that it's an organization that tries to spread good ideas) as her team at SETI had just begun the roll-out of something called setiQuest.
I'm not sure I understand it very well yet, but setiQuest is SETI's latest effort to engage and include the general population in their research efforts. Previously the best way for an individual to try to help SETI out was through something called Seti@Home. Seti@Home was an experiment in distributed processing, where people installed a screen saver on their computer that would process packages of data distribued by SETI while people's computers were idol. setiQuest sounds a little different, in that it sounds like they're going to make their research and analytical tools available over the internet. Almost like they're going to let you sign in and "turn some of the knobs" and see what comes out of the system. The website is setiQuest.org... Haven't taken a look yet, but you can be sure I will monitor how it develops.
Anyway, that was really the extent of the article and that was disappointing for me. I'm pretty sure that Jill Tarter isn't responsible for the misleading headline, but shame on whoever did write it. I love to try to think through the question posed by the headline, though. What if there is other intelligent life out there? I tend to believe the sheer scope of the universe means there probably is other life out there, and that some of it will have evolved intelligence... The universe would be pretty boring if not, eh? That aside though, what are the social implications of "first contact?" I feel like the entire world changes the very instant we do make contact. Wouldn't our own trifles and sources of conflict might not start to seem pretty trivial if we answered the "are we alone" question negatively. Maybe I'm to optimistic about human nature, and our own petty squabbles (and they're usually pretty petty if you break it down) will persist in the face of extraterrestrial opportunity or threat.
I'm not sure I understand it very well yet, but setiQuest is SETI's latest effort to engage and include the general population in their research efforts. Previously the best way for an individual to try to help SETI out was through something called Seti@Home. Seti@Home was an experiment in distributed processing, where people installed a screen saver on their computer that would process packages of data distribued by SETI while people's computers were idol. setiQuest sounds a little different, in that it sounds like they're going to make their research and analytical tools available over the internet. Almost like they're going to let you sign in and "turn some of the knobs" and see what comes out of the system. The website is setiQuest.org... Haven't taken a look yet, but you can be sure I will monitor how it develops.
Anyway, that was really the extent of the article and that was disappointing for me. I'm pretty sure that Jill Tarter isn't responsible for the misleading headline, but shame on whoever did write it. I love to try to think through the question posed by the headline, though. What if there is other intelligent life out there? I tend to believe the sheer scope of the universe means there probably is other life out there, and that some of it will have evolved intelligence... The universe would be pretty boring if not, eh? That aside though, what are the social implications of "first contact?" I feel like the entire world changes the very instant we do make contact. Wouldn't our own trifles and sources of conflict might not start to seem pretty trivial if we answered the "are we alone" question negatively. Maybe I'm to optimistic about human nature, and our own petty squabbles (and they're usually pretty petty if you break it down) will persist in the face of extraterrestrial opportunity or threat.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Political Correctness and Political Parties
Two things really really bother me about the modern American political landscape. Political correctness and political parties. One I view as an unnecessary evil, and the other an expedient but unpleasant evil.
Political Correctness
While I was being politicized/socialized at Shanghai American School and home in the mid to late 90s political correctness was not a particular concern of mine. In both forums I was free to ask questions or criticize statements without any fear of disturbing the forum participants' sensibilities. I'm not sure I realized it at first, but this all changed rather quickly after I arrived at Bradley University. In personal conversation I found that only some individuals were interested in serious discourse on certain topics (history, politics, religion, culture all spring to mind) with the rest seeming to be completely unwilling to listen, discuss, argue, persuade, or even get damned mad about those topics. It was as if those topics didn't even exist... Instead I found myself passionately (and to my way of thinking appropriately) arguing things like the value of On-Base Percentage in baseball, or the relative merits (or in my estimation, the lack thereof) of Rob Thomas as a musician.
I'm pretty sure that the reason for this is the concept of political correctness. To quote the definition on dictionary.com (who references the Random House Dictionary), politically correct means "Marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving esp. race, gender, sexual affinity, or ecology." Another definition dictionary.com definition pulled from American Heritage expands that to include class as an issue and specifies that to support broad changes in social, political, and educational circles. These definitions indicate obvious bias that I didn't expect. I had figured the definition would indicate that people don't address those topics out of respect for others' feelings, I hadn't ever realized there was a presupposition
The concept is that there already is an answer and so the political landscape should change to reflect that answer. How can one debate anything when there already is an answer? If one cannot debate or study these things, then how is one free to choose what they believe? If one cannot choose what they believe then how can they be free in the most basic sense? If someone else has already done your thinking for you... What is the purpose of thought itself? If one cannot think, then how are we different from our pets, or, for that matter, from a potted plant?
I'm pretty sure I knew the term "political correctness" before I went to college. And I think, probably to some degree, that I adhered to it in regular social situations... But I think that the academic environment at Bradley very likely left me frustrated at the lack of openness to discourse. My discontent found legs at some point when someone forwarded me a speech that Charlton Heston gave at Harvard Law School. There is a transcript here. The opinions of Charlton Heston are not the topic that interested me (nor do I believe I agree with him on everything), but rather his equation of political correctness to tyranny. The more I thought about it, the more I realized I fiercely agreed.
Political correctness isn't wrong because it makes people feel good or because it reduces the frequency of conflict between people. It's wrong because it limits everyone's ability to discuss important topics. It limits their ability to exchange the ideas they would use to change their world. In the end, I think it limits your ability to think if you let it. It makes you less free. As such, I am a staunch foe of political correctness, and I will do my best to never use it here.
Political Parties
The other generalized concept is a very unfortunate reality, and, because they are so incredibly efficient, one I am hard-pressed to believe we can shake ourselves of-- political parties. Most of our Founding Fathers were extremely opposed to political parties and political machines. They believed, and correctly so, that political parties would allow the many to be easily swayed via the tools of powerful individuals "behind" a party. I believe Thomas Jefferson said it adroitly in his letter to Francis Hopkinson:
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all."
That is exactly the thing I would express, if only I were such a writer. Modern America is defined, politically, by two dominant parties, Republican and Democratic... There are a few minor parties about, some that even win a seat now and again. There are a couple of parties who really do not express a message similar to the dominant two, such as the Green Party (environmentalists) or the Libertarian Party (nigh-on anarchists)-- as well as a couple of completely ridiculous parties, like the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party. Yep, the Happy Green Nazis. The rest, unfortunately, seem to be parties which appear to be merely more extreme versions of the two dominant parties. If you would like to research a little more deeply on minor parties in the United States, Ron Gunzburger's website has briefs and links for a lot of parties.
Having been sidetracked by the minor party discussion, let us consider our current climate in the United States. There are two defining parties, and I suspect neither does a great job representing their constituency. It seems like most people don't particularly trust or care for either one. Now that we've had some time to digest the Obama Presidency, approval ratings (particularly of the legislative branch) are beginning to fall as the euphoria of a major change wears off. I certainly don't like either party. I more often agree with the Republicans, I suppose, but also find a number of their platforms and positions to be completely reprehensible.
That's the thing, too. If I express that I don't particularly care for President Obama's rhetoric, then people assume I'm a Republican. Parties are another thing that seems to limit our ability to engage in an exchange of ideas. One statement associates you with a party that carries a certain platform and it's assumed then that you agree with the rest of that platform. If you so limit your thoughts to that of a party, how can you be properly heard? If you assume the person with whom you are debating something is in such a way limited, how can you properly hear them?
I am, as I believe Thomas Jefferson believed, unwilling to become a slave to a party or its dogma. We should all act as agents interested in exchanging ideas with our peers to best form American policy in a democratic fashion. Political parties, it would seem, can only limit our ability to freely debate our beliefs and reasonably synthesize government.
Political Correctness
While I was being politicized/socialized at Shanghai American School and home in the mid to late 90s political correctness was not a particular concern of mine. In both forums I was free to ask questions or criticize statements without any fear of disturbing the forum participants' sensibilities. I'm not sure I realized it at first, but this all changed rather quickly after I arrived at Bradley University. In personal conversation I found that only some individuals were interested in serious discourse on certain topics (history, politics, religion, culture all spring to mind) with the rest seeming to be completely unwilling to listen, discuss, argue, persuade, or even get damned mad about those topics. It was as if those topics didn't even exist... Instead I found myself passionately (and to my way of thinking appropriately) arguing things like the value of On-Base Percentage in baseball, or the relative merits (or in my estimation, the lack thereof) of Rob Thomas as a musician.
I'm pretty sure that the reason for this is the concept of political correctness. To quote the definition on dictionary.com (who references the Random House Dictionary), politically correct means "Marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving esp. race, gender, sexual affinity, or ecology." Another definition dictionary.com definition pulled from American Heritage expands that to include class as an issue and specifies that to support broad changes in social, political, and educational circles. These definitions indicate obvious bias that I didn't expect. I had figured the definition would indicate that people don't address those topics out of respect for others' feelings, I hadn't ever realized there was a presupposition
The concept is that there already is an answer and so the political landscape should change to reflect that answer. How can one debate anything when there already is an answer? If one cannot debate or study these things, then how is one free to choose what they believe? If one cannot choose what they believe then how can they be free in the most basic sense? If someone else has already done your thinking for you... What is the purpose of thought itself? If one cannot think, then how are we different from our pets, or, for that matter, from a potted plant?
I'm pretty sure I knew the term "political correctness" before I went to college. And I think, probably to some degree, that I adhered to it in regular social situations... But I think that the academic environment at Bradley very likely left me frustrated at the lack of openness to discourse. My discontent found legs at some point when someone forwarded me a speech that Charlton Heston gave at Harvard Law School. There is a transcript here. The opinions of Charlton Heston are not the topic that interested me (nor do I believe I agree with him on everything), but rather his equation of political correctness to tyranny. The more I thought about it, the more I realized I fiercely agreed.
Political correctness isn't wrong because it makes people feel good or because it reduces the frequency of conflict between people. It's wrong because it limits everyone's ability to discuss important topics. It limits their ability to exchange the ideas they would use to change their world. In the end, I think it limits your ability to think if you let it. It makes you less free. As such, I am a staunch foe of political correctness, and I will do my best to never use it here.
Political Parties
The other generalized concept is a very unfortunate reality, and, because they are so incredibly efficient, one I am hard-pressed to believe we can shake ourselves of-- political parties. Most of our Founding Fathers were extremely opposed to political parties and political machines. They believed, and correctly so, that political parties would allow the many to be easily swayed via the tools of powerful individuals "behind" a party. I believe Thomas Jefferson said it adroitly in his letter to Francis Hopkinson:
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all."
That is exactly the thing I would express, if only I were such a writer. Modern America is defined, politically, by two dominant parties, Republican and Democratic... There are a few minor parties about, some that even win a seat now and again. There are a couple of parties who really do not express a message similar to the dominant two, such as the Green Party (environmentalists) or the Libertarian Party (nigh-on anarchists)-- as well as a couple of completely ridiculous parties, like the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party. Yep, the Happy Green Nazis. The rest, unfortunately, seem to be parties which appear to be merely more extreme versions of the two dominant parties. If you would like to research a little more deeply on minor parties in the United States, Ron Gunzburger's website has briefs and links for a lot of parties.
Having been sidetracked by the minor party discussion, let us consider our current climate in the United States. There are two defining parties, and I suspect neither does a great job representing their constituency. It seems like most people don't particularly trust or care for either one. Now that we've had some time to digest the Obama Presidency, approval ratings (particularly of the legislative branch) are beginning to fall as the euphoria of a major change wears off. I certainly don't like either party. I more often agree with the Republicans, I suppose, but also find a number of their platforms and positions to be completely reprehensible.
That's the thing, too. If I express that I don't particularly care for President Obama's rhetoric, then people assume I'm a Republican. Parties are another thing that seems to limit our ability to engage in an exchange of ideas. One statement associates you with a party that carries a certain platform and it's assumed then that you agree with the rest of that platform. If you so limit your thoughts to that of a party, how can you be properly heard? If you assume the person with whom you are debating something is in such a way limited, how can you properly hear them?
I am, as I believe Thomas Jefferson believed, unwilling to become a slave to a party or its dogma. We should all act as agents interested in exchanging ideas with our peers to best form American policy in a democratic fashion. Political parties, it would seem, can only limit our ability to freely debate our beliefs and reasonably synthesize government.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Political Writing
It probably doesn't seem like it, based on the subject matter of previous posts, but I started this blog to write about politics. The thing is, I don't think Americans are comfortable enough talking about what they believe in. Political Correctness has turned most things worth debating into taboo subjects. Dusty started his blog, and told me how easy it was, and the next day I read an article regarding public health-care that so incensed me by the way it was constructed that I saved the link so I could come home, make a blog, and rant about that particular article.
I never did write about it. It's a little uncomfortable to write what I'm thinking about when it comes to serious topics like these. The problem being that that's falling victim to the same fears about PCness that keep people from engaging in discourse about these subjects. As such, I've resolved to put myself right and start blogging about these topics. This post is one small first step towards that goal.
I never did write about it. It's a little uncomfortable to write what I'm thinking about when it comes to serious topics like these. The problem being that that's falling victim to the same fears about PCness that keep people from engaging in discourse about these subjects. As such, I've resolved to put myself right and start blogging about these topics. This post is one small first step towards that goal.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Book Review: The Three Signs of a Miserable Job
Title: The Three Signs of a Miserable Job
Author: Patrick Lencioni
Reviewed Format: Hardcover
Pages: 256
Rating: 3 1/2 Stars
Review: I was asked to read this book as a part of a book club at work. This is my first review of a book that isn't necessarily designed as entertainment. As "the plot" isn't really the focus of the book, and it's not likely that I could spoil the experience for a prospective reader by letting the cat out of the proverbial bag. So get ready, cat's on the way and what not.
The subtext to the title is "A Fable for Managers (and their employees)," and that would indicate the book is most likely about trying to keep your employees happy and effective as they execute their jobs. As I am currently a non-supervisory management employee, it means that I read it from the "other side" (though it's not like I wouldn't like to be a manager of people one day) and tried to evaluate if I thought Mr. Lencioni's ideas put into practice would improve my opinion of my management or not.
The book starts of with the fictional story of one Brian Bailey, a successful businessman with humble roots. He started off in operations and climbed the ladder over time before finding himself the CEO of a mid-sized exercise equipment manufacturer. The industry enters into a consolidation mode and Brian decides to sell the company off and retire. He and his wife retire to Lake Tahoe and he gets bored and a little depressed without work. Long story short, he visits an Italian restaurant that's a little down on its luck and he ends up not only thinking through its problems, but meets with the owner and via that discussion ends up invested directly in the business.
The story from that point on serves as a vehicle for Lencioni to deliver his message. His point is that most people tend to think a job is a happy job when the employee is able to do something they love and get paid enough (or even a lot) money to do it. He suggests this model is at best flawed as there are numerous examples of famous athletes, actors, models, and musicians getting paid large sums of money to do what they love and still very unhappy. His theory is that there are three flaws common to jobs, each of which can make a person miserable: immeasurability (the author notes, as I do, that this wasn't a word until he made it so), irrelevance, and anonymity. This boils down to the idea that an employee needs to be able to measure how he makes people's lives better (immeasurability/irrelevance) and not be just a number in a phone book (anonymity).
The "fable" itself is written well enough. It's simple, with prose designed for maximum readability. I feel it'd be disingenuous to criticize Lencioni on his writing as he was absolutely able to deliver his intended message. There was even one night that the book turned into a little bit of a page-turner for me. The message itself I feel a little mixed on. There's no science to the fable... It's all pretty "soft," and Mr. Lencioni certainly wasn't going to write a story that didn't prove his point. That said, he was convincing enough in his arguments that I've found myself using some of the language in my conversations at work and interested to at least test some of it out. I'm not sure they're the absolute answer of making your employees happy, but I also very much doubt you'd make people unhappy by getting to know them and helping them understand how they help people get through their lives. It also points out something that I think is a lesson that should appear in every text for a manager: the job responsibilities of a manager of professionals do include results, but their primary function is to cause their group of professionals to perform effectively and efficiently.
A third of the way through this book, I was ready to put it down and forget about it, but I just got over the hump. I'm glad I did. It's an easy read, and it's going to help get a manager's mind focused on managing his people. From an employee's perspective, it might equip you with some concepts and vocabulary with which to train your boss and make your world a little better. Mr. Lencioni's written several other books, and I've picked out which I'll be reading next: Silos, Politics and Turf Wars. (3 1/2 Stars)
Author: Patrick Lencioni
Reviewed Format: Hardcover
Pages: 256
Rating: 3 1/2 Stars
Review: I was asked to read this book as a part of a book club at work. This is my first review of a book that isn't necessarily designed as entertainment. As "the plot" isn't really the focus of the book, and it's not likely that I could spoil the experience for a prospective reader by letting the cat out of the proverbial bag. So get ready, cat's on the way and what not.
The subtext to the title is "A Fable for Managers (and their employees)," and that would indicate the book is most likely about trying to keep your employees happy and effective as they execute their jobs. As I am currently a non-supervisory management employee, it means that I read it from the "other side" (though it's not like I wouldn't like to be a manager of people one day) and tried to evaluate if I thought Mr. Lencioni's ideas put into practice would improve my opinion of my management or not.
The book starts of with the fictional story of one Brian Bailey, a successful businessman with humble roots. He started off in operations and climbed the ladder over time before finding himself the CEO of a mid-sized exercise equipment manufacturer. The industry enters into a consolidation mode and Brian decides to sell the company off and retire. He and his wife retire to Lake Tahoe and he gets bored and a little depressed without work. Long story short, he visits an Italian restaurant that's a little down on its luck and he ends up not only thinking through its problems, but meets with the owner and via that discussion ends up invested directly in the business.
The story from that point on serves as a vehicle for Lencioni to deliver his message. His point is that most people tend to think a job is a happy job when the employee is able to do something they love and get paid enough (or even a lot) money to do it. He suggests this model is at best flawed as there are numerous examples of famous athletes, actors, models, and musicians getting paid large sums of money to do what they love and still very unhappy. His theory is that there are three flaws common to jobs, each of which can make a person miserable: immeasurability (the author notes, as I do, that this wasn't a word until he made it so), irrelevance, and anonymity. This boils down to the idea that an employee needs to be able to measure how he makes people's lives better (immeasurability/irrelevance) and not be just a number in a phone book (anonymity).
The "fable" itself is written well enough. It's simple, with prose designed for maximum readability. I feel it'd be disingenuous to criticize Lencioni on his writing as he was absolutely able to deliver his intended message. There was even one night that the book turned into a little bit of a page-turner for me. The message itself I feel a little mixed on. There's no science to the fable... It's all pretty "soft," and Mr. Lencioni certainly wasn't going to write a story that didn't prove his point. That said, he was convincing enough in his arguments that I've found myself using some of the language in my conversations at work and interested to at least test some of it out. I'm not sure they're the absolute answer of making your employees happy, but I also very much doubt you'd make people unhappy by getting to know them and helping them understand how they help people get through their lives. It also points out something that I think is a lesson that should appear in every text for a manager: the job responsibilities of a manager of professionals do include results, but their primary function is to cause their group of professionals to perform effectively and efficiently.
A third of the way through this book, I was ready to put it down and forget about it, but I just got over the hump. I'm glad I did. It's an easy read, and it's going to help get a manager's mind focused on managing his people. From an employee's perspective, it might equip you with some concepts and vocabulary with which to train your boss and make your world a little better. Mr. Lencioni's written several other books, and I've picked out which I'll be reading next: Silos, Politics and Turf Wars. (3 1/2 Stars)
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Why I Started a Blog
Because Dusty did!
That's pretty much the basic, check-in-the-box, reason. He mentioned he started one (link here), and when I tried to follow his, it gave me an option of starting my own. Done and done. I can't honestly say I'll keep this thing up or going, but the first step in testing my resolve is creating the blog in the first place. I'm going to avoid making it public journal for the most part and focus in on posting things that at least I'm thinking about that I'd like others to read and maybe comment on. I'll warn that the topics have the potential to be a bit all-over-the-placey since I'm interested in things like books, movies, games, sports, and in depth discussion of politics and international relations.
So that's pretty much it. Hope it's good and/or fun. Or as someone once deemed something I did at work, "great/adequate."
Side note: Please excuse our dust. I'll be horsing around with the layout until I'm happy.
That's pretty much the basic, check-in-the-box, reason. He mentioned he started one (link here), and when I tried to follow his, it gave me an option of starting my own. Done and done. I can't honestly say I'll keep this thing up or going, but the first step in testing my resolve is creating the blog in the first place. I'm going to avoid making it public journal for the most part and focus in on posting things that at least I'm thinking about that I'd like others to read and maybe comment on. I'll warn that the topics have the potential to be a bit all-over-the-placey since I'm interested in things like books, movies, games, sports, and in depth discussion of politics and international relations.
So that's pretty much it. Hope it's good and/or fun. Or as someone once deemed something I did at work, "great/adequate."
Side note: Please excuse our dust. I'll be horsing around with the layout until I'm happy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)