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.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)