For the past week I've been in Hendersonville, NC, doing a "Mommy visit". She's 86, still vibrant, beautiful, and in great shape. She's been married again for two years to a younger guy who lives for her. He and I played golf today - he thinks of my visits as one long lesson for a fixed fee! They live in a senior living center where they, and almost everyone else in their 80's and 90's are pretty trim as far as their body shape goes. However, their condition is in marked contrast to what we always see on the drive down from Rochester - rampant obesity.
Our drive takes us through West Virginia, southern Virginia, east Tennessee, and western North Carolina, all of which are largely rural and relatively poor. Stopping to eat in these areas brings us face to face with the obesity epidemic. The parade of young and middle aged severely overweight persons never stops. You see young children whose parents limp from the incredible strain their weight puts on their knees, entire families of people who are 50-100 pounds overweight munching down platefuls of greasy food at buffets. These people don't look well off, but they are certainly more than well-fed. It's a sad, sad sight.
USA Today had an article this week that stated 6.8 million Americans, 3% of us, are "morbidly obese", and another 25% are just obese. These statistics have increased significantly in just the past five years. From my experience as an EMT, I have seen firsthand the ravages of obesity. Diabetes and all its horrible complications, usually leading to an early death. Immobility, resulting in people living in the same chair day after day, barely having the strength to get to the bathroom. Heart attacks and life-threatening respiratory illnesses caused by overstressed and inadequate cardiovascular systems. A primary reason why the oldsters in my mother's senior center are "trim" is that almost all the heavy people are dead before they reach the age of 80.
Although these obese people pay a high personal price for being overweight, society also pays a huge price in Medicaid and Social Security Disability costs. Many young obese people cannot work because their joints have deteriorated to the degree they cannot get around, and therefore cannot work any longer - they are "disabled", and they get a monthly check from the government. Their medical costs are enormous, since they require numerous medications, often get surgeries (including amputations), and have frequent hospital visits for heart and respiratory issues. The trend for these costs is up, up, up.
So, should we be angry at those obese people who live restricted lives and cost us a fortune? I don't think so. The truth is that they are usually (but not always) a product of their environment, which is often a place where education, incentive, challenges, and jobs are all substandard. Their lives are dull, their role models are obese, their society shows little in the way of upward mobility. But one thing they can afford is food, and they have plenty of time on their hands to eat it. Another "proof" of this proposition is that many depressed people become obese as they sit listlessly at home. Fixing the obesity problem is going to require more than anger and more than bariatric surgery - it's going to require addressing the social problems in areas where obesity is rampant, and it's going to take a long time.
People who don't understand the issue often want to blame those who provide the food. "Just close the fast food restaurants", they say, or, "Healthy meals at schools". This is the same silly logic as the War on Drugs, which attempts to complete the hopeless task of cutting supply to addicts who will do anything to get their fix. What next? Close Dunkin' Donuts?
There are only two answers to the obesity problem. We could get totalitarian and pull everyone in for body mass measurements, with those over a certain percentage of body fat being sent immediately to a government "fat farm" somewhere in South Dakota. If that solution isn't to our democratic taste, then we need to provide enough education and incentives to modify the decisions of the potentially obese. I could direct some pretty good horror movies for fourth graders, which might scare some of them into skinnyness, but we'd still have to make sure those skinny high school graduates have something useful to do with their lives. A better solution would be to provide kids with enough interesting challenges, physical and mental, that will lead them to live naturally healthy lives. That's the life my kids got - why shouldn't kids in Appalachia and our inner cities have the same chance?
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Happy Easter! Bush and Cheney Resign!
So far, 2007 has been a pretty dismal year aside from the economy, which seems to continue trucking along despite unending bad news on the political front. But gas prices are up, home sales are dwindling, and a credit crunch may be on the horizon - so cross your fingers, knock on wood, or rub that rabbit's foot to help keep the economy from tanking by summertime. What this country needs right now is a fresh start, an Easter present, and the best one I can dream of is a joint resignation of our president and vice president.
Following January's installation of the Democratic party's congressional majority, Bush had one last chance to be a statesman. He could have put a smile on his face and all the big issues on the table. He could have asked the Democrats to put their best offers out for each of them, and then started a negotiating process. He could have sold his "surge" with a set of hard conditions for the Iraqi government and a timetable for withdrawal if the conditions were not met. He could have set a quiet tone for rhetoric and political tomfoolery, forcing the Democrats to quiet down or be seen as the instigators of unrest when great possibilities were out there for the taking.
But our illustrious leader did none of these things - no smiles, no offers, no prospect for ending the Iraq occupation, and no end to his sneering or his blatant political hirings and firings. He began his last two years in office with actions that have assurred two years of no progress and a continuation of his free fall in the polls. As the Iraq war continues to lose support on the Republican side and a potential recession looms, he faces the political equivalent of going "belly up" before his term ends. Newspapers may start posting the number of days left in his presidency on the front page, every day... is there any honorable way out of this quicksand?
In the interest of preserving some dignity and honor for this administration, I suggest that President Bush and Vice President Cheney resign as an Easter present to the country. This, of course, would hand over the presidency to Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, thereby giving Democrats control of the country almost two years before they will almost certainly take control. This surprise move would force the Democrats to actually do some things prior to the 2008 elections, and give the country some indication as to whether or not they deserve to consolidate power at that time. The stature of both men would improve substantially as a consequence of this selfless act.
Being a religious man, the president could couch the decision in terms of promoting peace in the country and the world - burying the hatchet, so to speak. He could quote Jesus, who on nearing Jerusalem grieved that those around him could not find the way to peace. On this Easter, George Bush and Dick Cheney could start for home with the admonition that those following them make a new start by choosing the way to peace, at home and abroad. And near the end of his speech, he could ask that Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, Michael Savage, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and all their close friends give the new administration a free pass for at least six months as a gesture of good will and Christian love.
Yes, Easter is a time of new beginnings. Let it be so!
Following January's installation of the Democratic party's congressional majority, Bush had one last chance to be a statesman. He could have put a smile on his face and all the big issues on the table. He could have asked the Democrats to put their best offers out for each of them, and then started a negotiating process. He could have sold his "surge" with a set of hard conditions for the Iraqi government and a timetable for withdrawal if the conditions were not met. He could have set a quiet tone for rhetoric and political tomfoolery, forcing the Democrats to quiet down or be seen as the instigators of unrest when great possibilities were out there for the taking.
But our illustrious leader did none of these things - no smiles, no offers, no prospect for ending the Iraq occupation, and no end to his sneering or his blatant political hirings and firings. He began his last two years in office with actions that have assurred two years of no progress and a continuation of his free fall in the polls. As the Iraq war continues to lose support on the Republican side and a potential recession looms, he faces the political equivalent of going "belly up" before his term ends. Newspapers may start posting the number of days left in his presidency on the front page, every day... is there any honorable way out of this quicksand?
In the interest of preserving some dignity and honor for this administration, I suggest that President Bush and Vice President Cheney resign as an Easter present to the country. This, of course, would hand over the presidency to Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, thereby giving Democrats control of the country almost two years before they will almost certainly take control. This surprise move would force the Democrats to actually do some things prior to the 2008 elections, and give the country some indication as to whether or not they deserve to consolidate power at that time. The stature of both men would improve substantially as a consequence of this selfless act.
Being a religious man, the president could couch the decision in terms of promoting peace in the country and the world - burying the hatchet, so to speak. He could quote Jesus, who on nearing Jerusalem grieved that those around him could not find the way to peace. On this Easter, George Bush and Dick Cheney could start for home with the admonition that those following them make a new start by choosing the way to peace, at home and abroad. And near the end of his speech, he could ask that Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, Michael Savage, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and all their close friends give the new administration a free pass for at least six months as a gesture of good will and Christian love.
Yes, Easter is a time of new beginnings. Let it be so!
Thursday, April 05, 2007
The Energy Emergency
James Canton, President of the Institute for Global Futures, wrote a book I'm reading titled "The Extreme Future". Canton is no hack - he's built a long term profitable business "predicting" the future for major companies and government. His analyses are based on matching facts about current circumstances with variables like growth rates, technology research, and social movements. His predictions cover energy, technology innovation, the workforce, medicine, climate, culture, international affairs, and privacy concerns, and some of them seem pretty wild. But then again, few people in 1977 would have believed a world with ubiquitous computers, heart catheterization, and free long distance calls.
One of Canton's predictions is that the world will run out of oil much faster than most of us would believe. The implications of this future shortage include $300/barrel prices and the need for entirely new sources of energy in my lifetime, and I'm 62 for a few more months. He's got my attention, and fortunately he offers hope that the world's future energy requirements may be met by new and amazing technology, like nanotech. But that's not what I want to discuss right now.
Canton's picture of how the U.S. fits into the world of oil is sobering. We consume about 20 million barrels of oil each day, 12 million of which are imported. At the current price of $64/barrel, that's $768 million spent every day on imported oil. We consume as much oil as Japan and China combined, and 11% of global oil production is devoted to fueling cars and trucks in the United States. Our oil reserves are only about 3% of the world's reserves, and the oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve would increase that by only a fraction of 1%. In other words, we are oil gluttons and we have little oil of our own. Our entire economy depends on obtaining increasingly expensive oil from countries who may or may not wish to sell it to us.
In the face of these simple but scary facts, our government is disturbingly quiet about its plans for ensuring we will have enough energy for future needs or, potentially, short term needs during an international crisis. Our president talks about replacing 20% of our gasoline use with ethanol within 10 years, which some experts believe is a very optimistic proposal. But the real problem with this plan is that it is grossly inadequate in terms of its overall impact on U.S. oil imports. The ethanol solution leaves us incredibly dependent on foreign sources and does nothing to curb the consumption that will grow inexorably as our population grows.
Why is the U.S. government not laying out the whole simple truth for us, and why is the government not doing more to ensure we will have the energy we need in the future? It's not that there is nothing we can do. Europe and Japan are far ahead of the U.S. in nuclear power and alternative power production as a percent of total usage, and their high taxes on oil promote conservation. We just continue to buy SUV's, fill them with cheap $2.80/gallon gas, and sit in traffic jams waiting to get back home to our overly large, energy-inefficient abodes. And our government smiles on this behavior - why?
One argument for keeping the status quo on U.S. energy policy is that so much of our economy depends on heavy use of oil. Our car factories build large, expensive, heavy cars, and we have an enormous infrastructure that supports the sale, service, and fueling of these vehicles. Increasing the mileage of our vehicles or taxing oil more heavily will slow down the employment and profits of this infrastructure, and perhaps slow our economy. The losers would clearly be some of the very powerful players in industrial America - autos and oil. And, of course, the average American would not happily downsize into slower, more efficient vehicles or smaller, more efficient homes. Big corporations and many individuals love the status quo, and this is the constituency our government is more than willing to placate.
Canton is blunt about where the current policy has got us. He says, "This era (of cheap oil) is over, and Americans are ill-prepared to meet the challenges of either an energy-restricted future, characterized by slow growth, or one in which expensive energy curbs business productivity and national GDP growth. Everyone will need to face the stark realities of an energy-restricted and costly future. The time to have acted was ten to twenty years ago. Now the world will have to play catch-up, especially America."
Leadership is all about managing the "big issues". The Bush administration, filled with incompetent political hacks and reactionaries, has managed none of these issues during the past six years. Not entitlements, not education, not immigration, not climate change, and, perhaps most embarassingly, not energy during a period when virtually every knowledgeable person sees the end of cheap energy just over the horizon. Even minimal CAFE increases were too risky for our president to spend his "political capital" on. History will not be kind to George Bush, but cursing him will provide little solace for our children.
One of Canton's predictions is that the world will run out of oil much faster than most of us would believe. The implications of this future shortage include $300/barrel prices and the need for entirely new sources of energy in my lifetime, and I'm 62 for a few more months. He's got my attention, and fortunately he offers hope that the world's future energy requirements may be met by new and amazing technology, like nanotech. But that's not what I want to discuss right now.
Canton's picture of how the U.S. fits into the world of oil is sobering. We consume about 20 million barrels of oil each day, 12 million of which are imported. At the current price of $64/barrel, that's $768 million spent every day on imported oil. We consume as much oil as Japan and China combined, and 11% of global oil production is devoted to fueling cars and trucks in the United States. Our oil reserves are only about 3% of the world's reserves, and the oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve would increase that by only a fraction of 1%. In other words, we are oil gluttons and we have little oil of our own. Our entire economy depends on obtaining increasingly expensive oil from countries who may or may not wish to sell it to us.
In the face of these simple but scary facts, our government is disturbingly quiet about its plans for ensuring we will have enough energy for future needs or, potentially, short term needs during an international crisis. Our president talks about replacing 20% of our gasoline use with ethanol within 10 years, which some experts believe is a very optimistic proposal. But the real problem with this plan is that it is grossly inadequate in terms of its overall impact on U.S. oil imports. The ethanol solution leaves us incredibly dependent on foreign sources and does nothing to curb the consumption that will grow inexorably as our population grows.
Why is the U.S. government not laying out the whole simple truth for us, and why is the government not doing more to ensure we will have the energy we need in the future? It's not that there is nothing we can do. Europe and Japan are far ahead of the U.S. in nuclear power and alternative power production as a percent of total usage, and their high taxes on oil promote conservation. We just continue to buy SUV's, fill them with cheap $2.80/gallon gas, and sit in traffic jams waiting to get back home to our overly large, energy-inefficient abodes. And our government smiles on this behavior - why?
One argument for keeping the status quo on U.S. energy policy is that so much of our economy depends on heavy use of oil. Our car factories build large, expensive, heavy cars, and we have an enormous infrastructure that supports the sale, service, and fueling of these vehicles. Increasing the mileage of our vehicles or taxing oil more heavily will slow down the employment and profits of this infrastructure, and perhaps slow our economy. The losers would clearly be some of the very powerful players in industrial America - autos and oil. And, of course, the average American would not happily downsize into slower, more efficient vehicles or smaller, more efficient homes. Big corporations and many individuals love the status quo, and this is the constituency our government is more than willing to placate.
Canton is blunt about where the current policy has got us. He says, "This era (of cheap oil) is over, and Americans are ill-prepared to meet the challenges of either an energy-restricted future, characterized by slow growth, or one in which expensive energy curbs business productivity and national GDP growth. Everyone will need to face the stark realities of an energy-restricted and costly future. The time to have acted was ten to twenty years ago. Now the world will have to play catch-up, especially America."
Leadership is all about managing the "big issues". The Bush administration, filled with incompetent political hacks and reactionaries, has managed none of these issues during the past six years. Not entitlements, not education, not immigration, not climate change, and, perhaps most embarassingly, not energy during a period when virtually every knowledgeable person sees the end of cheap energy just over the horizon. Even minimal CAFE increases were too risky for our president to spend his "political capital" on. History will not be kind to George Bush, but cursing him will provide little solace for our children.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
"Groundhog Day" at the White House
I watched our president's news conference this morning and I couldn't suppress memories of Bill Murray's movie "Groundhog Day". He wakes up every morning to the same situation, just as I hear the same refrains, over and over, from George Bush regarding the war in Iraq. It's as though we are always starting from scratch with a clean slate, with no past to take into consideration.
Today everthing is starting anew with General Petreaus. It's the "surge", a new strategy that will make everything right. The senate confirmed him, so the plan is right. We will pacify Baghdad, and all will be fine over there. Why then, am I reminded of all the other assurances of success over the past four years? First it was the military victory and the anticipated glorious rising of the grateful Iraqi people. Then it was Saddam's capture and the end of Sunni/Baathist hopes for keeping power. Then it was the elections, now two years in the past, that were to bring democratic decisions that would bring some kind of harmony to the warring parties. Now it's the "surge", which is another word for military victory. Every morning it's the same old problem - Iraq is in chaos, militarily and politically. And each day we get a new solution along with grand hopes for success.
Iraq, unlike the movies, does not give us a free pass to start over again and again. There are huge costs involved - dead and wounded, giant budget deficits, world opinion - each time the president hits the "restart button". Why should we believe that this particular "Groundhog Day" will be the last? Why should we believe that George Bush can do it, this time?
I'm a pessimist on the potential for success of this latest attempt to get Iraq under control. Those with a track record of successes have the best chance to lead another successful enterprise, but this president has six years of history in office and little to show for it. If it's true that the past is the best predictor of the future, Bush's latest Iraq strategy will continue to build his case study of mismanagement on a colossal scale. But to Bush, every morning is a new day and the Iraq situation just came to his attention. For him, all those other "Groundhog Days" never happened.
It's time for the movie to be over. I'm tired of seeing the same ending over and over again. Bring the troops home.
Today everthing is starting anew with General Petreaus. It's the "surge", a new strategy that will make everything right. The senate confirmed him, so the plan is right. We will pacify Baghdad, and all will be fine over there. Why then, am I reminded of all the other assurances of success over the past four years? First it was the military victory and the anticipated glorious rising of the grateful Iraqi people. Then it was Saddam's capture and the end of Sunni/Baathist hopes for keeping power. Then it was the elections, now two years in the past, that were to bring democratic decisions that would bring some kind of harmony to the warring parties. Now it's the "surge", which is another word for military victory. Every morning it's the same old problem - Iraq is in chaos, militarily and politically. And each day we get a new solution along with grand hopes for success.
Iraq, unlike the movies, does not give us a free pass to start over again and again. There are huge costs involved - dead and wounded, giant budget deficits, world opinion - each time the president hits the "restart button". Why should we believe that this particular "Groundhog Day" will be the last? Why should we believe that George Bush can do it, this time?
I'm a pessimist on the potential for success of this latest attempt to get Iraq under control. Those with a track record of successes have the best chance to lead another successful enterprise, but this president has six years of history in office and little to show for it. If it's true that the past is the best predictor of the future, Bush's latest Iraq strategy will continue to build his case study of mismanagement on a colossal scale. But to Bush, every morning is a new day and the Iraq situation just came to his attention. For him, all those other "Groundhog Days" never happened.
It's time for the movie to be over. I'm tired of seeing the same ending over and over again. Bring the troops home.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
You Got to Know This!
There's a blog called Hullabaloo by Digby, who is apparently a pretty good digger or who has friends who are. I found this, by Digby, via Alternate Brain. (Are there laws about how blog authors need to be attributed? This question is for you, Dave.) At any rate, the information is as scary as just about anything in the Bush administration, excepting DICK and RUMMY, of course. So here goes:
"Last night I noted that Monica Goodling, Alberto Gonzales' senior counsel and white house liason graduated from Pat Robertson's Regent Unicersity law school. Apparently, she did her undergraduate work at someplace known as Messiah University, so it's pretty clear that this 33 year old is a dyed in the wool social conservative who was likely hired for that reason. Apparently, the Bush Emerald City hiring practices were more systemic than we thought: there are more than 150 graduates of Regent University serving in the Bush Administration."
The Attorney General of the United States has a senior counsel who is 33 years old and graduated from Regent University in 1999? Senior counsel and liason to the White House? Messiah College (not University) and Regent University? Certainly Alberto Gonzales found her to be the brightest and most seasoned professional available for this critical job, otherwise he wouldn't have hired her.
Monica got the experience that qualified her for the Gonzales job by serving the Department of Justice as Director of Public Affairs following her hiring by John Ashcroft. That's why it's so surprising that Ms. Goodling will take the Fifth Amendment when she faces the judiciary committee and is asked about details of the process that ultimately fired eight U.S. attorneys. A person with her impeccable pedigree and solid legal background should be capable of eating congressmen and senators for breakfast, don't you think?
Kinda makes you wonder how many other Kirk Sampson's and Monica Goodling's are getting potty training in this administration. Thanks, Digby!
"Last night I noted that Monica Goodling, Alberto Gonzales' senior counsel and white house liason graduated from Pat Robertson's Regent Unicersity law school. Apparently, she did her undergraduate work at someplace known as Messiah University, so it's pretty clear that this 33 year old is a dyed in the wool social conservative who was likely hired for that reason. Apparently, the Bush Emerald City hiring practices were more systemic than we thought: there are more than 150 graduates of Regent University serving in the Bush Administration."
The Attorney General of the United States has a senior counsel who is 33 years old and graduated from Regent University in 1999? Senior counsel and liason to the White House? Messiah College (not University) and Regent University? Certainly Alberto Gonzales found her to be the brightest and most seasoned professional available for this critical job, otherwise he wouldn't have hired her.
Monica got the experience that qualified her for the Gonzales job by serving the Department of Justice as Director of Public Affairs following her hiring by John Ashcroft. That's why it's so surprising that Ms. Goodling will take the Fifth Amendment when she faces the judiciary committee and is asked about details of the process that ultimately fired eight U.S. attorneys. A person with her impeccable pedigree and solid legal background should be capable of eating congressmen and senators for breakfast, don't you think?
Kinda makes you wonder how many other Kirk Sampson's and Monica Goodling's are getting potty training in this administration. Thanks, Digby!
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Mutual Weakness in Washington
The United States, the most powerful country in the world, must appear hapless to those looking in from the outside. Our democracy, our pride and joy, lies hogtied by sectarian conflict, much like the fractured Iraqi society. Our sects, Republicans and Democrats, are locked in a combat of words rather than bullets, but the outcome is similar: the war of words is preventing any movement toward national reconciliation and progress.
It's at times like this that the British system of parliamentary democracy looks decidedly superior. Our president has the approval of roughly one-third of the citizenry, yet he retains the immense power of his office. The supposed oversight function of congress is emasculated by the rules of our constitution. We citizens stand on the sidelines, powerless to change the status quo.
In my view, the current situation is dangerous for our country. The executive branch, weighed down by a history of misjudgments, lies, and imperial hubris, has little credibility and less political capital. Its reaction time is slowed by the need to convince the people that it has actionable facts and a plan not overly influenced by politics. The legislative branch is so fractured and focused on 2008 that it has no interest in the now.
Why is the current situation dangerous? Because those who are interested in overtaking the economic and political power of the U.S. are not constrained as we currently are. Every year that we fail to deal with our own internal issues makes them relatively stronger. For example, the baby steps being taken in the name of "national energy policy" are music to the ears of our offshore petroleum suppliers. Our competitors love it when our own system creates weakness in our country and reduces our influence on world affairs. Unfortunately, that's what we have today - mutual weakness in Washington.
It's at times like this that the British system of parliamentary democracy looks decidedly superior. Our president has the approval of roughly one-third of the citizenry, yet he retains the immense power of his office. The supposed oversight function of congress is emasculated by the rules of our constitution. We citizens stand on the sidelines, powerless to change the status quo.
In my view, the current situation is dangerous for our country. The executive branch, weighed down by a history of misjudgments, lies, and imperial hubris, has little credibility and less political capital. Its reaction time is slowed by the need to convince the people that it has actionable facts and a plan not overly influenced by politics. The legislative branch is so fractured and focused on 2008 that it has no interest in the now.
Why is the current situation dangerous? Because those who are interested in overtaking the economic and political power of the U.S. are not constrained as we currently are. Every year that we fail to deal with our own internal issues makes them relatively stronger. For example, the baby steps being taken in the name of "national energy policy" are music to the ears of our offshore petroleum suppliers. Our competitors love it when our own system creates weakness in our country and reduces our influence on world affairs. Unfortunately, that's what we have today - mutual weakness in Washington.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Go Away, Hillary and John!
I'm sick and tired of royal political families, I'm sick and tired of the far right and far left's incessant feces-throwing, and I'm sick and tired of our government's having no plans to deal with the unavoidable crises that face our nation. It's time for some major adjustments to our political choices, driven by the now-not-so-silent majority in the middle.
Everyone knows we've had enough of the Bush's. Some of us voted (once) for the incumbent idiot, remembering that his father ran a pretty good administration. We've learned our lesson, I hope. There are too many entanglements in that family - business interests, foreign connections, Texas politics, Sunday-school religion. Jeb could be the next incarnation of God and not be elected president.
But we've probably had enough of the Clinton's as well. Bill did a reasonable job, considering his minority in congress and his sexual adventures. But Hillary has too much baggage, too much connection to that divisive period, to be effective. She should give it up, perhaps simply because her husband was president. We don't need any more royal families.
And McCain, he's too old and too vacillating. Right now it seems like the "Straight Talk Express" has morphed into a cow-towing parade as old John pays homage to such carrion as Jerry Falwell. Old John is figuring he's got one last chance and has to pull out all the stops to get the nomination. And we don't have nearly enough soldiers to staff the overwhelming force he envisions for Iraq... Americans will not pay any attention to him.
So, what should the now-not-so-silent majority do? Walk away. Tell these worn out politicians that their time has passed. Turn off the strident, no-compromise voices of the radicals on both sides. Wait for a new set of candidates, Democrats and Republicans, to surface during the next 18 months. Open our ears to arguments about the facts of our society today, alternatives for the direction of our country, statements about what we want to stand for, and hopes for the world we want for our grandchildren. There have got to be a few good men and women who can stand up and make themselves be heard because, simply, people feel they are smart enough and honest enough lead us out of the ugly political morass we read and hear about every day.
The alternative is to let the current candidates' money and old alliances keep us down in the stagnant streams of business as usual. We've been fooled too many times, been promised substance and gotten hidden agendas, been taken to war for no reason. Time to put all the old politicians out to pasture!
Everyone knows we've had enough of the Bush's. Some of us voted (once) for the incumbent idiot, remembering that his father ran a pretty good administration. We've learned our lesson, I hope. There are too many entanglements in that family - business interests, foreign connections, Texas politics, Sunday-school religion. Jeb could be the next incarnation of God and not be elected president.
But we've probably had enough of the Clinton's as well. Bill did a reasonable job, considering his minority in congress and his sexual adventures. But Hillary has too much baggage, too much connection to that divisive period, to be effective. She should give it up, perhaps simply because her husband was president. We don't need any more royal families.
And McCain, he's too old and too vacillating. Right now it seems like the "Straight Talk Express" has morphed into a cow-towing parade as old John pays homage to such carrion as Jerry Falwell. Old John is figuring he's got one last chance and has to pull out all the stops to get the nomination. And we don't have nearly enough soldiers to staff the overwhelming force he envisions for Iraq... Americans will not pay any attention to him.
So, what should the now-not-so-silent majority do? Walk away. Tell these worn out politicians that their time has passed. Turn off the strident, no-compromise voices of the radicals on both sides. Wait for a new set of candidates, Democrats and Republicans, to surface during the next 18 months. Open our ears to arguments about the facts of our society today, alternatives for the direction of our country, statements about what we want to stand for, and hopes for the world we want for our grandchildren. There have got to be a few good men and women who can stand up and make themselves be heard because, simply, people feel they are smart enough and honest enough lead us out of the ugly political morass we read and hear about every day.
The alternative is to let the current candidates' money and old alliances keep us down in the stagnant streams of business as usual. We've been fooled too many times, been promised substance and gotten hidden agendas, been taken to war for no reason. Time to put all the old politicians out to pasture!
Friday, March 16, 2007
Could Ben Bova Be Right?
The Good Witch and I have been sitting quietly, reading. I steal a glance at the basketball game from time to time - will Villanova or Kentucky prevail? Then I arrive at this paragraph in Ben Bova's book "Titan" which I have modified only slightly.
The wise character says: "The real reason we have elections is to allow the people to vent some political steam. Elections are a safety valve, you see. They give people the illusion that they have some degree of control over their government. Without elections, who knows what kind of protests and outright rebellions we might get - even from these lazy, non-involved citizens. They're slackers and nonconformists, no doubt, but if they feel government is not sensitive to their needs, they will hunt for a way to change the government. Elections are better than revolts."
Watching our government in action - Republicans and Democrats alike - makes me wonder whether what goes on inside the beltway is simply a charade, political shadow-boxing, much ado about nothing purporting to be government. What exactly have our representatives accomplished in the two months since the new congress convened? What are their plans for this year? Kinda makes me wonder why they're there in the first place. Could Ben Bova be right?
What did that guy say about "hunting for a way to change the government"? Slackers and nonconformists, unite!
The wise character says: "The real reason we have elections is to allow the people to vent some political steam. Elections are a safety valve, you see. They give people the illusion that they have some degree of control over their government. Without elections, who knows what kind of protests and outright rebellions we might get - even from these lazy, non-involved citizens. They're slackers and nonconformists, no doubt, but if they feel government is not sensitive to their needs, they will hunt for a way to change the government. Elections are better than revolts."
Watching our government in action - Republicans and Democrats alike - makes me wonder whether what goes on inside the beltway is simply a charade, political shadow-boxing, much ado about nothing purporting to be government. What exactly have our representatives accomplished in the two months since the new congress convened? What are their plans for this year? Kinda makes me wonder why they're there in the first place. Could Ben Bova be right?
What did that guy say about "hunting for a way to change the government"? Slackers and nonconformists, unite!
Thursday, March 15, 2007
I'm Wrong Again!
Take my advice. If I make a prediction, bet against it. You'll make some cash.
In the euphoria following the democrat's victory in the November elections, I held out great hope that both the democrats and the republicans needed to do important things for the country in preparation for the 2008 elections. Wrong.
Instead of doing important things, the democrats are gleefully pursuing political hearings and constructing meaningless resolutions concerning the war in Iraq.
Do you really think we need hearings to determine that the firing of selected federal procecutors was political? Do we need more proof that Bush's staff can't tell the truth? Not.
Do you really think that the republican minority in the senate will let the democrats manage the war? Why can't the democrats just make a statement of their views and go on?
The president wants comprehensive immigration reform, and most democrats agree with him. What's preventing them from putting a negotiated bill on the floor of both houses?
I haven't heard a democrat talk about Social Security or Medicare since November 5th, 2006. I must have missed the news that those entitlements are now funded for the forseeable future.
Yes, I admit it. I'm an incurable optimist. I know that great things can be done by people who are committed to making things better. The sad truth is that both parties have that objective pretty far down their agendas - the old horses just keep circling the same old track.
I've officially given up on this bunch, and I'm thinking about 2008. The big question now is "Will Obama need to become a whore to get elected?" He's the only face with any class, at least for now.
In the euphoria following the democrat's victory in the November elections, I held out great hope that both the democrats and the republicans needed to do important things for the country in preparation for the 2008 elections. Wrong.
Instead of doing important things, the democrats are gleefully pursuing political hearings and constructing meaningless resolutions concerning the war in Iraq.
Do you really think we need hearings to determine that the firing of selected federal procecutors was political? Do we need more proof that Bush's staff can't tell the truth? Not.
Do you really think that the republican minority in the senate will let the democrats manage the war? Why can't the democrats just make a statement of their views and go on?
The president wants comprehensive immigration reform, and most democrats agree with him. What's preventing them from putting a negotiated bill on the floor of both houses?
I haven't heard a democrat talk about Social Security or Medicare since November 5th, 2006. I must have missed the news that those entitlements are now funded for the forseeable future.
Yes, I admit it. I'm an incurable optimist. I know that great things can be done by people who are committed to making things better. The sad truth is that both parties have that objective pretty far down their agendas - the old horses just keep circling the same old track.
I've officially given up on this bunch, and I'm thinking about 2008. The big question now is "Will Obama need to become a whore to get elected?" He's the only face with any class, at least for now.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
How To Stay Out of Trouble
This week it's Alberto Gonzales and his juvenile assistant Kyle Sampson, and Peter Pace. Gonzales & Co. caught in another web of lies to congress, Pace adding "Chief Morality Arbitor" to his role as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The hapless Sampson is history, Gonzales and Pace are under fire. The events of this week almost prompted me to write a sequel to my "You Are Who You Hire" post of last week, but that would be just more of the same sad story - Bush just can't resist hiring sub-standard people who will get him in trouble.
And speaking of trouble, it's a good thing to stay out of. An important question for politicians, managers, and individuals is, "How do I stay out of trouble?" If we have a good answer to this question, our lives and our jobs will certainly be more pleasant.
But before we can answer this question we need to understand what "trouble" is. Trouble is what happens when a non-trivial error of commission or omission becomes public. Criticism ensues. Explanations are demanded. Careers or relationships are at risk. Being in trouble is not fun. Before it's over, an episode of "trouble" usually results in the truth of the situation becoming known, for better or worse.
My experience has taught me that it's always best to react quickly and honestly to any sign of trouble. Get the exact facts of what happened. Understand why the act of commission or omission occurred. Communicate the truth, promptly and non-emotionally to all who have some power in the situation. Maybe this will involve "eating some crow". Maybe the facts will make the trouble go away. But timeliness and honesty always score points and, at the least, prevent the initial "trouble" from spawning another "trouble" concerning the disclosure process.
But those who have ever been in real "trouble" know it's best not to be there in the first place. So, here's the test that works best to keep one from getting in trouble in the first place. Ask "Would I feel comfortable having this conduct, or this research, or this decision, truthfully explained on the front page of the New York Times?" If you're not sure about the answer, don't do whatever it is. Restrain the action, do more research, re-consider the decision. Time almost always clarifies a potentially troublesome situation and permits the appropriate solution to rise out of the uncertainty.
Having said this, I can hear the cries of my readers: "Yeah, sure, always wait until you have perfect information and clarity, and you won't ever make a bad choice! Sorry, pal, but that just isn't the way the world works." And you are right. We all have to make choices based on incomplete information.
The way around this problem is to qualify choices at the time we make them. Admit potential information gaps and explain them at the time the choice is made. Let those who are affected by your choice understand your decision-making process prior to, or at least concurrent with, the action being taken. Get the concerns out at the earliest possible time, so that agreement or acquiescence or opposition will surface and clarify whatever the next steps should be. As someone once said, "Information is power". I say, "Providing information to others gives one power". Our penchant for providing incomplete information to others often results in our own failure to use pertinent information to determine our own actions. In other words, when we try to kid others we often kid ourselves as well. "Open kimona" is the best policy.
That's it. The secret to staying out of trouble is to assume that everything concerning an action will eventually come out. Once we understand that, we consider our decisions for as long as we can, we provide information that qualifies our choices, and we deal with fallout honestly and promptly with as little emotion as possible. Mr. Gonzales, does this make sense to you in light of this week's events? There's never a better time than the present to turn over a new leaf.
And speaking of trouble, it's a good thing to stay out of. An important question for politicians, managers, and individuals is, "How do I stay out of trouble?" If we have a good answer to this question, our lives and our jobs will certainly be more pleasant.
But before we can answer this question we need to understand what "trouble" is. Trouble is what happens when a non-trivial error of commission or omission becomes public. Criticism ensues. Explanations are demanded. Careers or relationships are at risk. Being in trouble is not fun. Before it's over, an episode of "trouble" usually results in the truth of the situation becoming known, for better or worse.
My experience has taught me that it's always best to react quickly and honestly to any sign of trouble. Get the exact facts of what happened. Understand why the act of commission or omission occurred. Communicate the truth, promptly and non-emotionally to all who have some power in the situation. Maybe this will involve "eating some crow". Maybe the facts will make the trouble go away. But timeliness and honesty always score points and, at the least, prevent the initial "trouble" from spawning another "trouble" concerning the disclosure process.
But those who have ever been in real "trouble" know it's best not to be there in the first place. So, here's the test that works best to keep one from getting in trouble in the first place. Ask "Would I feel comfortable having this conduct, or this research, or this decision, truthfully explained on the front page of the New York Times?" If you're not sure about the answer, don't do whatever it is. Restrain the action, do more research, re-consider the decision. Time almost always clarifies a potentially troublesome situation and permits the appropriate solution to rise out of the uncertainty.
Having said this, I can hear the cries of my readers: "Yeah, sure, always wait until you have perfect information and clarity, and you won't ever make a bad choice! Sorry, pal, but that just isn't the way the world works." And you are right. We all have to make choices based on incomplete information.
The way around this problem is to qualify choices at the time we make them. Admit potential information gaps and explain them at the time the choice is made. Let those who are affected by your choice understand your decision-making process prior to, or at least concurrent with, the action being taken. Get the concerns out at the earliest possible time, so that agreement or acquiescence or opposition will surface and clarify whatever the next steps should be. As someone once said, "Information is power". I say, "Providing information to others gives one power". Our penchant for providing incomplete information to others often results in our own failure to use pertinent information to determine our own actions. In other words, when we try to kid others we often kid ourselves as well. "Open kimona" is the best policy.
That's it. The secret to staying out of trouble is to assume that everything concerning an action will eventually come out. Once we understand that, we consider our decisions for as long as we can, we provide information that qualifies our choices, and we deal with fallout honestly and promptly with as little emotion as possible. Mr. Gonzales, does this make sense to you in light of this week's events? There's never a better time than the present to turn over a new leaf.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Update on "The Great Courses"
The Good Witch and I have now viewed 13 30-minute lectures on "The History of Western Civilization", offered by The Learning Company and taught by Professor Thomas F.X. Noble, a department chair at Notre Dame University.
We started at about 10,000 B.C. in Mesopotamia - the Neolithic Period, and we've very rapidly time-traveled to the Greek Classical Period of approximately 400 B.C. Along the way we've learned about the great cultures of Sumer, the Israelites, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Cretans, and the ancient Greeks. Most recently we've been exposed to the Persian Wars, Homer, the birth of history, Greek architecture, art, and drama, and Socrates/Plato.
Professor Noble talks fast and covers a lot of ground. It's hard to lose interest in what he's saying, because everything he discusses is important. He sticks to the main theme, which is "let's discuss the who, what, and where of the fundamental characteristics of Western civilization. Fascinating. He knows a whole lot about a whole lot, and you quickly realize that you are merely getting a taste. But it's a taste of the right stuff, and sometimes you rush to your laptop immediately after he finishes, anxious to Google something that was particularly interesting.
I Googled Socrates tonight, and I learned he was a war hero whose sense of honor precluded him from fleeing Athens after his conviction for dissing the Gods and being anti-democratic. He didn't like democracy, but he accepted the hemlock rather than be perceived as a coward in his home town. His belief in an afterlife probably gave him courage. His idea of always questioning our perceptions, and his focus on living a moral life enlightened by knowledge of "what is good", have become embedded in our culture. I probably knew all that a long time ago, but now I know it again.
It would be hard for me to travel to South Bend and wangle myself into Professor Noble's classroom. It's a pleasure to have him spend a half hour with us each night after dinner.
We started at about 10,000 B.C. in Mesopotamia - the Neolithic Period, and we've very rapidly time-traveled to the Greek Classical Period of approximately 400 B.C. Along the way we've learned about the great cultures of Sumer, the Israelites, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Cretans, and the ancient Greeks. Most recently we've been exposed to the Persian Wars, Homer, the birth of history, Greek architecture, art, and drama, and Socrates/Plato.
Professor Noble talks fast and covers a lot of ground. It's hard to lose interest in what he's saying, because everything he discusses is important. He sticks to the main theme, which is "let's discuss the who, what, and where of the fundamental characteristics of Western civilization. Fascinating. He knows a whole lot about a whole lot, and you quickly realize that you are merely getting a taste. But it's a taste of the right stuff, and sometimes you rush to your laptop immediately after he finishes, anxious to Google something that was particularly interesting.
I Googled Socrates tonight, and I learned he was a war hero whose sense of honor precluded him from fleeing Athens after his conviction for dissing the Gods and being anti-democratic. He didn't like democracy, but he accepted the hemlock rather than be perceived as a coward in his home town. His belief in an afterlife probably gave him courage. His idea of always questioning our perceptions, and his focus on living a moral life enlightened by knowledge of "what is good", have become embedded in our culture. I probably knew all that a long time ago, but now I know it again.
It would be hard for me to travel to South Bend and wangle myself into Professor Noble's classroom. It's a pleasure to have him spend a half hour with us each night after dinner.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
You Are Who You Hire
"Scooter" Libby's conviction today reminded me of an old lesson I learned in the business world. If you want to understand the true motivations of another manager, look at the people this person has hired or retained on their staff - especially the key people.
Do you see a cadre of intimidated "yes-people"? Do you see a bunch of bullies, or workaholics? Do you see people who have little respect for truth or the "rules of the game"? Or, do you see people who work with others to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes? Do you see people who give you time or expertise when there is little or no benefit to their organization but obvious value to the corporation? Do you see people who reward their subordinates for showing creativity? Whatever you see, it will be the characteristics that are valued by the leader, because the leader will give higher value to people like him or her.
"Loyalty" is the one word we hear more than any other when Bush's own team talks about their culture. If you stay with the party line, you are in. If not, you are out. Intellectual independence and initiative make you persona non grata, but loyalty might get you hired to run FEMA or be appointed as the new attorney general. It's right out there in the open.
So, what price loyalty? Colin Powell walked one kind of plank to stay on the team - he buried his doubts on weapons and his convictions about needing overwhelming force to win. "Scooter" walked another - he buried his integrity. Bush's succession of press secretaries, while very different personalities, have all been unabashed "stonewallers"; no matter how obvious the problems, they've denied them with straight faces. Rumsfeld will go down in history for his comment about "just a bunch of dead-enders" when truth in the form of dead Americans began to appear. Do the current White House staff members still think loyalty will work out for them?
But, back to the main point. The buck does stop at the top. Bush doesn't leash Cheney because Bush likes Cheney's snarling, sarcastic style just like Bush appreciated Rumsfeld's smiling, sarcastic style. Bush gives people nicknames to reduce them and ensure they understand their subservient status, not to honor them. Just go down the list of cabinet members...who among them will be remembered for anything other than obedience to a failed president? Can anyone name Bush's chief of staff? Cogs in a wheel, going nowhere because the leader is going nowhere.
Bush will be remembered for the characteristics of those he hired - men of bluff and bluster, just like him, the grinning chimpmeister of "Bring 'em on" fame. And when the next president is inaugurated, we only need to look at those surrounding him or her to get a really good idea about what we should should expect in the next four years. You are who you hire.
Do you see a cadre of intimidated "yes-people"? Do you see a bunch of bullies, or workaholics? Do you see people who have little respect for truth or the "rules of the game"? Or, do you see people who work with others to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes? Do you see people who give you time or expertise when there is little or no benefit to their organization but obvious value to the corporation? Do you see people who reward their subordinates for showing creativity? Whatever you see, it will be the characteristics that are valued by the leader, because the leader will give higher value to people like him or her.
"Loyalty" is the one word we hear more than any other when Bush's own team talks about their culture. If you stay with the party line, you are in. If not, you are out. Intellectual independence and initiative make you persona non grata, but loyalty might get you hired to run FEMA or be appointed as the new attorney general. It's right out there in the open.
So, what price loyalty? Colin Powell walked one kind of plank to stay on the team - he buried his doubts on weapons and his convictions about needing overwhelming force to win. "Scooter" walked another - he buried his integrity. Bush's succession of press secretaries, while very different personalities, have all been unabashed "stonewallers"; no matter how obvious the problems, they've denied them with straight faces. Rumsfeld will go down in history for his comment about "just a bunch of dead-enders" when truth in the form of dead Americans began to appear. Do the current White House staff members still think loyalty will work out for them?
But, back to the main point. The buck does stop at the top. Bush doesn't leash Cheney because Bush likes Cheney's snarling, sarcastic style just like Bush appreciated Rumsfeld's smiling, sarcastic style. Bush gives people nicknames to reduce them and ensure they understand their subservient status, not to honor them. Just go down the list of cabinet members...who among them will be remembered for anything other than obedience to a failed president? Can anyone name Bush's chief of staff? Cogs in a wheel, going nowhere because the leader is going nowhere.
Bush will be remembered for the characteristics of those he hired - men of bluff and bluster, just like him, the grinning chimpmeister of "Bring 'em on" fame. And when the next president is inaugurated, we only need to look at those surrounding him or her to get a really good idea about what we should should expect in the next four years. You are who you hire.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Recommending "Maisie Dobbs"
I always have a book in progress, and it could be anything - history, biography, science, science fiction, adventure novel (rarely), religion, philosophy, you name it. I will tackle a tough one occasionally, like "A Short History of Time" (actually read it all!), but generally I just like a book that is well written and teaches me something about anything. That's why I'm recommending Jacqueline Winspear's series of books about the character "Maisie Dobbs".
Without giving away anything important, I can tell you that Maisie is a commoner girl whose talent, pluck, and good luck allow her to join the small middle class in post-WWI London as a professional "investigator and psychologist". She solves some interesting mysteries, but they are not what have kept my interest. What has kept my interest is the faithful representation of English culture during this period, especially with respect to the impact of WWI on post-war England. If you have a prejudice against war, Winspear will deepen it and give you a far more "gut-level" understanding of why war is a last resort. If you like war, Winspear will make you think again.
In the fourth novel of the series, Maisie and a veteran are conversing about the war and the recruiting effort that provided the fighters. The veteran says, "Old men always tell the young to do their bit, and half the time it isn't anything they want to do themselves." Needless to say, the image of Bush and his neocon team of draft evaders came to mind immediately.
But politics don't often come up in these books, so don't worry about being preached to. Maisie is a wonderful character, and I hope you get to meet her. The books are relatively quick reads, so grab the first one - entitled "Maisie Dobbs" - and give her a try. A very bright member of Rochester's only commune, the Rochester Folk Art Guild, recommended it to me. I'm grateful.
Without giving away anything important, I can tell you that Maisie is a commoner girl whose talent, pluck, and good luck allow her to join the small middle class in post-WWI London as a professional "investigator and psychologist". She solves some interesting mysteries, but they are not what have kept my interest. What has kept my interest is the faithful representation of English culture during this period, especially with respect to the impact of WWI on post-war England. If you have a prejudice against war, Winspear will deepen it and give you a far more "gut-level" understanding of why war is a last resort. If you like war, Winspear will make you think again.
In the fourth novel of the series, Maisie and a veteran are conversing about the war and the recruiting effort that provided the fighters. The veteran says, "Old men always tell the young to do their bit, and half the time it isn't anything they want to do themselves." Needless to say, the image of Bush and his neocon team of draft evaders came to mind immediately.
But politics don't often come up in these books, so don't worry about being preached to. Maisie is a wonderful character, and I hope you get to meet her. The books are relatively quick reads, so grab the first one - entitled "Maisie Dobbs" - and give her a try. A very bright member of Rochester's only commune, the Rochester Folk Art Guild, recommended it to me. I'm grateful.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Ramblings About Jobs and Education
Ad hominem comments are very telling about those who make them. Generally, one should avoid people who attack messengers, no matter how nuts they think the messengers are. There are better ways to deal with differences of opinion.
I have two engineer friends, one in middle age one at retirement age. Both were laid off in the past couple years after long careers at a very large company. Both got good jobs in the engineering field very quickly. They both have wonderful personalities and are easy to work with, which is why I think they got jobs so quickly.
My early-30's daughter in law was phi beta kappa in psychology, but she got her first job as a contractor trainer in Microsoft end user programs. One of her customer companies hired her into their training systems area. Soon she was a manager, then a manager of a larger group. This week she leaves that company, after eight years, for a far better job at a company whose software she successfully implemented. Now she'll manage projects all over the U.S. from her home. Not bad for someone with no formal IS training.
For every person who's having trouble finding a job, I can find someone who's doing well. The question is, what are the characteristics of the successful people versus the unsuccessful ones?
I'm very familiar with EDS. A large group of EDS people once supported my organization, and I believe I had about 16 systems projects going at the time I retired. EDS has always been a pretty hard-headed company, highly structured and not paternalistic. But it operates in a world of rapidly changing technology and requirements, which requires it to adjust constantly. People who work for EDS had better stay current on technology and be capable of working successfully in small groups, or they are history. EDS employees need to understand that from the get-go.
When I was a manager I often took on bright people who were failing in other organizations. In most cases they became sought-after people within a couple years, and they accepted promotions out of my area. These employees became very attractive when they learned how to interact successfully with their customers. Just being smart didn't cut it. Lots of people still don't understand this simple fact of work life.
Yes, I'm embarassed that George Bush has an MBA. He obviously got by on his legacy status, and his job performance has been consistently crappy. But it's a mistake to judge the bushel on the one bad apple. Some people of every educational background are out of touch with reality.
I'm an optimist. I'm excited by all the challenges that we face, from global warming to religious conflict to foreign competition. It will take a lot of effective people, working hard, to tackle these issues and make the world a better place. I love it when I see somebody or some group come up with a better idea and make it happen. And I really enjoy being part of something really new and cool, like yesterday when we proposed an idea to Habitat for Humanity that they think is going to solve a big problem and make them much more capable of accomplishing their mission.
I was one of those people who took physics and "got through it". I appreciate it but I'm not good at it. Another one of my classmates got a PhD in nuclear physics in five years afer high school. We're all different. But I'm glad I was exposed to physics. It was not wasted time, nor was the time my genius friend spent taking English composition. Educated people know something about almost everything (even physics and economics), and that (along with shared ethical values) allows people with varied talents to work together and do great things.
So, I need to get busy working for one of the three non-profits where I volunteer. Later this afternoon I'll read to some kids in the inner city - it's National Reading Day! I hope they enjoy "Lyle, Lyle, Crocodile", which is about a very nice crocodile who overcomes others' prejudices about him and is ultimately embraced by those who persecuted him.
I have two engineer friends, one in middle age one at retirement age. Both were laid off in the past couple years after long careers at a very large company. Both got good jobs in the engineering field very quickly. They both have wonderful personalities and are easy to work with, which is why I think they got jobs so quickly.
My early-30's daughter in law was phi beta kappa in psychology, but she got her first job as a contractor trainer in Microsoft end user programs. One of her customer companies hired her into their training systems area. Soon she was a manager, then a manager of a larger group. This week she leaves that company, after eight years, for a far better job at a company whose software she successfully implemented. Now she'll manage projects all over the U.S. from her home. Not bad for someone with no formal IS training.
For every person who's having trouble finding a job, I can find someone who's doing well. The question is, what are the characteristics of the successful people versus the unsuccessful ones?
I'm very familiar with EDS. A large group of EDS people once supported my organization, and I believe I had about 16 systems projects going at the time I retired. EDS has always been a pretty hard-headed company, highly structured and not paternalistic. But it operates in a world of rapidly changing technology and requirements, which requires it to adjust constantly. People who work for EDS had better stay current on technology and be capable of working successfully in small groups, or they are history. EDS employees need to understand that from the get-go.
When I was a manager I often took on bright people who were failing in other organizations. In most cases they became sought-after people within a couple years, and they accepted promotions out of my area. These employees became very attractive when they learned how to interact successfully with their customers. Just being smart didn't cut it. Lots of people still don't understand this simple fact of work life.
Yes, I'm embarassed that George Bush has an MBA. He obviously got by on his legacy status, and his job performance has been consistently crappy. But it's a mistake to judge the bushel on the one bad apple. Some people of every educational background are out of touch with reality.
I'm an optimist. I'm excited by all the challenges that we face, from global warming to religious conflict to foreign competition. It will take a lot of effective people, working hard, to tackle these issues and make the world a better place. I love it when I see somebody or some group come up with a better idea and make it happen. And I really enjoy being part of something really new and cool, like yesterday when we proposed an idea to Habitat for Humanity that they think is going to solve a big problem and make them much more capable of accomplishing their mission.
I was one of those people who took physics and "got through it". I appreciate it but I'm not good at it. Another one of my classmates got a PhD in nuclear physics in five years afer high school. We're all different. But I'm glad I was exposed to physics. It was not wasted time, nor was the time my genius friend spent taking English composition. Educated people know something about almost everything (even physics and economics), and that (along with shared ethical values) allows people with varied talents to work together and do great things.
So, I need to get busy working for one of the three non-profits where I volunteer. Later this afternoon I'll read to some kids in the inner city - it's National Reading Day! I hope they enjoy "Lyle, Lyle, Crocodile", which is about a very nice crocodile who overcomes others' prejudices about him and is ultimately embraced by those who persecuted him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
