The self-employed do not have to deal with office politics. Nor, generally, do people who work with only one other person--the practically self-employed. In those situations, generally one person is the acknowledged superior and the other the acknowledged inferior. This is how marriages work. But once a workplace has three or more people, it has become a de facto society. And politics are society's fuel.
And the more members of a society, the more politics there are. This is not a comment on the TYPE of politics (vicious, collegial, etc.), merely on the amount. That is, if we define politics as the "use of intrigue or strategy in obtaining any position of power or control, as in business, university, etc." (http://www.dictionary.com/), then the number of strategies occurring at any given time rises directly (if not exponentially) with the number of people in a given society.
Case in point, the Solipsist has the opportunity to observe politcal interactions firsthand on a day-t0-day basis. The industry is not relevant, merely that it meets our definition of a workplace society. For simplicity's sake, let's just say the Solipsist is intimately familiar with the goings on at a widget factory. In the last hour alone, the following acts of politics occurred:
--At a meeting of the Basic-Widget Department, the head of the division reported that the parent company--Amalgamated Widgets, Cogs, and Gizmos--was demanding a rigorous accounting of the exact times at which each widget's thingamabob was installed on the whatsis. No matter that there had been no major complaints on the finished widgets' performance.
--At this same meeting, the issue was raised that the Deluxe Widget Department was upset at the Basic Widget staff, who were taking it upon themselves to assist in the polishing of Deluxe Widgets. It should go without saying that widget-polishing is a skill that all widget artisans possess, and that a well-polished widget will shine no matter who does the polishing.
--Finally, the heads of the Basic, Deluxe, and International-Standard Widgets Departments are wrestling with the Facilities Manager, who is concerned that each department's widget-manufacturing activities occur at slightly different and not always overlapping times. This creates issues around securing the factory at the end of the day.
When looked at from a global perspective, what is striking is the utter simplicity of the possible solutions. If each widget-making department simply worked on producing widgets, cooperating when necessary, concentrating on achieving the best results when not, then no problems would exist and fine widgets would pour forth consistently. Instead, efficiency suffers because of each individual department's political concerns.
Can anything be done? Yes and no. Man is a political animal. But it helps to remember that politics is always means, never an end.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
Move on?
Should we just move on? This is one of the central questions lingering as we approach the end of the long national nightmare known as the Bush administration. Should our elected representatives investigate and, where necessary, prosecute the abuses of the outgoing administration? Or should everyone just be thankful that it's all over (if it is) and focus on the future?
Both sides have reasonable arguments. On the one hand, justice must be done. For all those who died because of false information about WMDs and terrorist ties. For those who have been held in detention camps. For those who have been "rendered" to other countries. For those who have been tortured. And this is only looking at the crimes and misdemeanors associated with the "war" on terror. This doesn't take into account the destruction of the economy, the incompetence around Hurricane Katrina, the cronyism in the Vice-President's office and any number of other possibly prosecutable offenses.
On the other hand, there are those (and not just those who have a personal stake in it) who say that it would be better for our government to save its energy to focus on more pressing concerns--namely, all those issues mentioned above, which are still wreaking havoc with the national well-being. Leaving aside for the moment the question of why our representatives can't do both, which is the more pressing concern?
The temptation to move on is great. So many people are exhausted. But there would be a certain satisfaction in seeing Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others hauled into the dock. And for their apologists, many of whom are crying loudly that now is not the time--that the nation has bigger worries--it is tempting to ask how these critics felt back in the halcyon days of the Clinton impeachment. Did the nation have nothing better to do then? True, this was pre-9/11, and the country was in a comparatively better place, but there must have been SOMETHING else going on.
The basic mistake that the "move on"-ers make is conflating investigation with stagnation. They don't see that asking questions about what happened, and prosecuting those actions that need to be prosecuted, IS moving forward. If it weren't, why conduct trials at all? Crimes that are being prosecuted are necessarily "past"--we don't yet have the technology or clairvoyance to prosecute people for things they are going to do in the future. But we don't often see a defense attorney arguing for acquittal on the grounds that something is "done": "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it is true that my client killed Mrs. McGillicuddy, but since she's dead anyway, you might as well just let him go."
Society's interests are served by maintaining the rule of law. Society needs to move on from the sins of the past, but it is not up to the sinners to determine when.
Both sides have reasonable arguments. On the one hand, justice must be done. For all those who died because of false information about WMDs and terrorist ties. For those who have been held in detention camps. For those who have been "rendered" to other countries. For those who have been tortured. And this is only looking at the crimes and misdemeanors associated with the "war" on terror. This doesn't take into account the destruction of the economy, the incompetence around Hurricane Katrina, the cronyism in the Vice-President's office and any number of other possibly prosecutable offenses.
On the other hand, there are those (and not just those who have a personal stake in it) who say that it would be better for our government to save its energy to focus on more pressing concerns--namely, all those issues mentioned above, which are still wreaking havoc with the national well-being. Leaving aside for the moment the question of why our representatives can't do both, which is the more pressing concern?
The temptation to move on is great. So many people are exhausted. But there would be a certain satisfaction in seeing Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others hauled into the dock. And for their apologists, many of whom are crying loudly that now is not the time--that the nation has bigger worries--it is tempting to ask how these critics felt back in the halcyon days of the Clinton impeachment. Did the nation have nothing better to do then? True, this was pre-9/11, and the country was in a comparatively better place, but there must have been SOMETHING else going on.
The basic mistake that the "move on"-ers make is conflating investigation with stagnation. They don't see that asking questions about what happened, and prosecuting those actions that need to be prosecuted, IS moving forward. If it weren't, why conduct trials at all? Crimes that are being prosecuted are necessarily "past"--we don't yet have the technology or clairvoyance to prosecute people for things they are going to do in the future. But we don't often see a defense attorney arguing for acquittal on the grounds that something is "done": "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it is true that my client killed Mrs. McGillicuddy, but since she's dead anyway, you might as well just let him go."
Society's interests are served by maintaining the rule of law. Society needs to move on from the sins of the past, but it is not up to the sinners to determine when.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Slow News Day
So the Republican party is looking for a new Chairman, and two of the finalists, J. Kenneth Blackwell and Michael Steele, are black. One wonders if these are, in fact, THE two black Republicans in the country. A cliche, perhaps, but, still. And if so, more power to them. It's probably a good career move for a black politician. When Michael Bloomberg, a lifelong Democrat, ran for mayor of New York, he ran as a Republican, assuming, presumably, that the Democratic field was far too crowded with qualified politicians to for a neophyte, even a ridiculously wealthy one, to break through. So he ran as a Republican, won, and, not too long ago, switched his party allegiance to Independent (presumably going back to Democrat would be tacky). So maybe Mssrs. Blackwell and Steele are actually soft-hearted liberals, too, biding their time, working their way up the Republican hierarchy. It worked out reasonably well, for New York.
No, huh?
Otherwise, a fairly uneventful news day for a Sunday. Troubles in the Mideast, of course. Detroit's getting ready to start a major push for an electric car. And, as of this writing, depending on what happens in Pittsburgh, three of the top four seeds in the NFL are out of the playoffs, including the Giants. As the only New York area team left in the playoffs, they were the Solipsist's sole real rooting interest. Now what is he supposed to distract himself with for the next few months?
Well, only about a month 'til pitchers and catchers. Stay strong, America!
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Shibboleths
Have you noticed how, in reportage about the nation's current economic troubles, one standard formulation goes roughly like this: "This is the worst recession/economic downturn since the 1930's"? Isn't this just a desperate attempt to avoid saying, "since the Great Depression"? Are people afraid that if they use those words it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy? Is this the business-section equivalent of not mentioning a perfect game when a pitcher finishes the 7th without allowing a base-runner? Should the Solipsist knock on wood even as he finishes typing these words? (For what it's worth, he did. Rest easy, true believers.)
But superstitiously avoiding such locutions is a catch-22. The greater and more frequent the verbal contortions one goes through to avoid saying the things everyone is thinking, the more obvious those contortions become. And their very obviousness negates any advantage gained from the original reticence. Indeed, if you watch baseball, you will note that sportscasters have largely abandoned the injunction against mentioning a no-hitter during a game. It's a wonder that our other, theoretically more serious news outlets can't bring themselves to abandon their own superstitions.
Remember folks, in writing, clarity is never a bad thing. If you're so afraid of mentioning something that you can't bring yourself to say it clearly, don't mention it at all. In fact, don't be a writer at all. Certainly don't be a reporter. To write or not to write is a choice. But once you've made the choice, clarity is an obligation.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Pueleve, Rismouse, Diereepr, Defacki
No, not a multi-ethnic law firm.
Not a spell for summoning a horrifying creature of Lovecraftian dimensions.
Not characters from Gravity's Rainbow.
Give up?
These are words that have appeared when YNSHC has posted comments to other blogs, or signed up for Google Mail, or attempted to sell his cousin's kidney on-- perhaps YNSHC has said too much.
In other (more conventional) words, these are examples of the web's ubiquitous security feature. Those apparently random character strings that one is meant to type into a box to ensure that one is. . . . Well, that one is a "one" and not some borglike entity bent on world domination through the acquisition of numerous e-mail addresses. The Solipsist himself, not being overly computer literate, is not clear on the reasoning behind the device: It seems to him that anyone tech-savvy enough to program a computer to spew random nonsense would, without too much additional work, be able to program that computer to recognize these embedded wordlets, but maybe not. Maybe that's why they're always squiggly and printed at various levels of legibility (even to human eyes).
One also wonders about the managers of these sites. Consider their choices. Some sites use actual words. Google, it seems, wants you to type in "words" that are not actually WORDS but look like they could be. Thus "pueleve" is not in the dictionary, nor are "rismouse," "diereepr," and "defacki." But they all look linguistically plausible. Pueleves and rismice sound like animals--the former perhaps a wild Portuguese chicken, the latter a Dickensian rodent. A diereepr would be a combination screwdriver and plow of Czech origins, and a defacki sounds like a term for a lovable fall-guy.
The question, then, is: If they're not going to use words, why use things that sound like words? Out of consideration for the human operator, who might have trouble typing "nfhew2nfr"?
(Digression: And now don't you start to imagine "words" everywhere? Those characters were typed while the writer looked away from the keyboard. But the primed mind sees in them "Nephew to infer"--perhaps instructions for reading a will? The same thing happens when you stare at license plates too long. End of digression.)
Or perhaps it's a straetgy to get you to quest linguistically, to look up the non-words and thereby stumble onto other sesquipedalian gems. Looking up "defacki" led to the discovery of "defalcate"--to be guilty of defalcation! (All right, all right: Defalcation: misappropriation of money or funds held by an official, trustee, or other fiduciary.) And that's actually useful! Now, instead of whining about, say, Bernie Madoff's swindle, we can pontificate about the rise of defalcation and the toll it is taking on society.
Ah, Google. . . .Is there anything your "do no evil" ways CAN'T improve?
Not a spell for summoning a horrifying creature of Lovecraftian dimensions.
Not characters from Gravity's Rainbow.
Give up?
These are words that have appeared when YNSHC has posted comments to other blogs, or signed up for Google Mail, or attempted to sell his cousin's kidney on-- perhaps YNSHC has said too much.
In other (more conventional) words, these are examples of the web's ubiquitous security feature. Those apparently random character strings that one is meant to type into a box to ensure that one is. . . . Well, that one is a "one" and not some borglike entity bent on world domination through the acquisition of numerous e-mail addresses. The Solipsist himself, not being overly computer literate, is not clear on the reasoning behind the device: It seems to him that anyone tech-savvy enough to program a computer to spew random nonsense would, without too much additional work, be able to program that computer to recognize these embedded wordlets, but maybe not. Maybe that's why they're always squiggly and printed at various levels of legibility (even to human eyes).
One also wonders about the managers of these sites. Consider their choices. Some sites use actual words. Google, it seems, wants you to type in "words" that are not actually WORDS but look like they could be. Thus "pueleve" is not in the dictionary, nor are "rismouse," "diereepr," and "defacki." But they all look linguistically plausible. Pueleves and rismice sound like animals--the former perhaps a wild Portuguese chicken, the latter a Dickensian rodent. A diereepr would be a combination screwdriver and plow of Czech origins, and a defacki sounds like a term for a lovable fall-guy.
The question, then, is: If they're not going to use words, why use things that sound like words? Out of consideration for the human operator, who might have trouble typing "nfhew2nfr"?
(Digression: And now don't you start to imagine "words" everywhere? Those characters were typed while the writer looked away from the keyboard. But the primed mind sees in them "Nephew to infer"--perhaps instructions for reading a will? The same thing happens when you stare at license plates too long. End of digression.)
Or perhaps it's a straetgy to get you to quest linguistically, to look up the non-words and thereby stumble onto other sesquipedalian gems. Looking up "defacki" led to the discovery of "defalcate"--to be guilty of defalcation! (All right, all right: Defalcation: misappropriation of money or funds held by an official, trustee, or other fiduciary.) And that's actually useful! Now, instead of whining about, say, Bernie Madoff's swindle, we can pontificate about the rise of defalcation and the toll it is taking on society.
Ah, Google. . . .Is there anything your "do no evil" ways CAN'T improve?
Thursday, January 8, 2009
The Random Opinion Generator
Something has happened to the Solipsist since his first posting just over a week ago: He has become opinionated.
Undoubtedly, his friends, family, and acquaintances would say it has been ever thus, but this is different. Round the clock, his mind whirls with. . . thoughts. Random thoughts. Clever thoughts. Banal thoughts. Each accompanied by a mental pilot fish, chewing around the edges, nibbling at the meaty center, taste-testing to see whether the thought is worth sharing. Maybe "worth" is the wrong word: Functional shareability, mere expressibility is the major criterion. That is, if a thought can be put into words, it will be.
For what else is a blogger to do? He has an obligation--to his followers if he has any, to himself if he does not. Entries must be made. A blogger (any writer) risks inertia if he lets up. Let's face it: NOT writing is certainly easier than writing. Especially if there's something good on TV.
So does blogging MAKE one an opinionated jerk, or does it merely release the inner-opinionated jerk in all of us? Nature abhors a vacuum. If there are unused bits and bytes, something must fill them. And every bit and byte left unfilled by the Solipsist is one more bit or byte that could be filled by the Dick Cheneys, the Bill O'Reillys, the Ann Coulters of the world.
Rise up, good people! Blog for freedom. Crowd out the reactionary enemies of creative thought. Censorship is inherently wrong. But it's not our fault if we use up all the paper before our antagonists get out their pens!
Undoubtedly, his friends, family, and acquaintances would say it has been ever thus, but this is different. Round the clock, his mind whirls with. . . thoughts. Random thoughts. Clever thoughts. Banal thoughts. Each accompanied by a mental pilot fish, chewing around the edges, nibbling at the meaty center, taste-testing to see whether the thought is worth sharing. Maybe "worth" is the wrong word: Functional shareability, mere expressibility is the major criterion. That is, if a thought can be put into words, it will be.
For what else is a blogger to do? He has an obligation--to his followers if he has any, to himself if he does not. Entries must be made. A blogger (any writer) risks inertia if he lets up. Let's face it: NOT writing is certainly easier than writing. Especially if there's something good on TV.
So does blogging MAKE one an opinionated jerk, or does it merely release the inner-opinionated jerk in all of us? Nature abhors a vacuum. If there are unused bits and bytes, something must fill them. And every bit and byte left unfilled by the Solipsist is one more bit or byte that could be filled by the Dick Cheneys, the Bill O'Reillys, the Ann Coulters of the world.
Rise up, good people! Blog for freedom. Crowd out the reactionary enemies of creative thought. Censorship is inherently wrong. But it's not our fault if we use up all the paper before our antagonists get out their pens!
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Into the Dragon's Den
Have you seen this show? It's on BBC America (http://www.bbcamerica.com/).
(Digression: Have Americans started affectionately referring to it as "the Beeb," yet? Have Brits started affectionately referring to CNN as "the Can"? Or to Fox News as "Murdoch's little Fascist mouthpiece whose editorial viewpoint is slightly to the right of Hitler's"? End of digression.)
"Dragon's Den" is "The Apprentice" meets "American Idol," only ALL the judges are Simon Cowell. Each episode features aspiring entrepreneurs pitching their products to a group of five "Dragons"--successful businesspeople who decide whether to invest their own money into the aspirants' projects. It's an all-or-nothing proposition: The aspirants must receive at least the amount of money they ask for, or they get nothing.
The Dragons:
(Please note: The roster changes occasionally; these were the ones in the most recent episode watched by the Solipsist)
Peter ("The Mogul") Jones: Wears the nicest suits and tends to be the one left at the end when the other Dragons have already declared themselves "out" of the running for the deal. Very bottom-line oriented (even for the Dragons).
Made his fortune in: Telecommunications, but began his career as a teenager by opening his own tennis academy! (Apparently, there's a major demand for these in the UK).
If the show were American, his seat would be filled by: Donald Trump
In the movie he'd be played by: Matt Damon (maybe)
Simon ("Paula") Woodroffe: The closest thing to a Paula Abdul among the judges. Usually seems to have something encouraging to say to the budding businessfolk, even as he's shooting them down. Has strange sideburns and wears oddly-colored shoes.
Made his fortune in: Fast-food sushi restaurants--or something like that.
If the show were American, his seat would be filled by: Mark Cuban
In the movie, he'd be played by: Paul Giamatti
Doug ("The Token") Richard: The lone American dragon. At least he gets to sit in the middle seat.
Made his fortune in: Buying and selling software companies (i.e., nothing).
If the show were American, his seat would be filled by: Doug Richard
In the movie, he'd be played by: Bob Balaban
Duncan ("Bannatyne, Duncan Bannatyne") Bannatyne: A somewhat creepy Scotsman, always dressing in black suits and pretty much declaring himself "out" at about the moment that the aspirant says, "Hello, I'm--".
Made his fortune in: The leisure industry.
If the show were American, his seat would be filled by: Steve Wynn
In the movie, he'd be played by: Ralph Fiennes.
Rachel ("The Woman") Elnaugh: Another one who is rarely seen to actually invest in anything. Perhaps it's because her business is valued at a "mere" 30,000,000 pounds, which is not quite the stratospheric level of the other dragons.
Made her fortune in: Something called "Red-Letter Days," which is apparently a service that allows people to live out their fantasies. You know, a whorehouse. (Kidding, Rachel, kidding!)
If the show were American, her seat would be filled by: Martha Stewart (a bit on the nose, maybe, but so what).
In the movie, she'd be played by: Cate Blanchett (You're welcome!).
Anyway, the aspirants pitch pretty much anything. Products have included umbrella vending machines, origami camping equipment, an automated baby rocker, even an avant-garde circus production company. The aspirants offer an equity stake in their business in exchange for the requested investment. Here is how the negotiations generally proceed:
ASPIRANT: (completes presentation) So, there you have it. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
DRAGON: So, you're asking for 100,000 pounds?
ASPIRANT: That's right.
DRAGON: For what share of the business?
ASPIRANT: 10%.
DRAGON: Right, well, that's far too low. I tell you, I'd be willing to invest 50,000 for 25% of the company, if you can find another dragon willing to put up the rest.
So, basically, people who enter the Den end up (if they're lucky) parting with half their business. And it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the actual "goodness" of the idea. No matter how interesting/potentially lucrative the deal may be, the Dragons ALWAYS want 50%. True, 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing, but there seems something rather distasteful about the whole thing.
Hmmm. . . Cut-throat capitalism combined with reality TV, distasteful? What are the odds?
(Digression: Have Americans started affectionately referring to it as "the Beeb," yet? Have Brits started affectionately referring to CNN as "the Can"? Or to Fox News as "Murdoch's little Fascist mouthpiece whose editorial viewpoint is slightly to the right of Hitler's"? End of digression.)
"Dragon's Den" is "The Apprentice" meets "American Idol," only ALL the judges are Simon Cowell. Each episode features aspiring entrepreneurs pitching their products to a group of five "Dragons"--successful businesspeople who decide whether to invest their own money into the aspirants' projects. It's an all-or-nothing proposition: The aspirants must receive at least the amount of money they ask for, or they get nothing.
The Dragons:
(Please note: The roster changes occasionally; these were the ones in the most recent episode watched by the Solipsist)
Peter ("The Mogul") Jones: Wears the nicest suits and tends to be the one left at the end when the other Dragons have already declared themselves "out" of the running for the deal. Very bottom-line oriented (even for the Dragons).
Made his fortune in: Telecommunications, but began his career as a teenager by opening his own tennis academy! (Apparently, there's a major demand for these in the UK).
If the show were American, his seat would be filled by: Donald Trump
In the movie he'd be played by: Matt Damon (maybe)
Simon ("Paula") Woodroffe: The closest thing to a Paula Abdul among the judges. Usually seems to have something encouraging to say to the budding businessfolk, even as he's shooting them down. Has strange sideburns and wears oddly-colored shoes.
Made his fortune in: Fast-food sushi restaurants--or something like that.
If the show were American, his seat would be filled by: Mark Cuban
In the movie, he'd be played by: Paul Giamatti
Doug ("The Token") Richard: The lone American dragon. At least he gets to sit in the middle seat.
Made his fortune in: Buying and selling software companies (i.e., nothing).
If the show were American, his seat would be filled by: Doug Richard
In the movie, he'd be played by: Bob Balaban
Duncan ("Bannatyne, Duncan Bannatyne") Bannatyne: A somewhat creepy Scotsman, always dressing in black suits and pretty much declaring himself "out" at about the moment that the aspirant says, "Hello, I'm--".
Made his fortune in: The leisure industry.
If the show were American, his seat would be filled by: Steve Wynn
In the movie, he'd be played by: Ralph Fiennes.
Rachel ("The Woman") Elnaugh: Another one who is rarely seen to actually invest in anything. Perhaps it's because her business is valued at a "mere" 30,000,000 pounds, which is not quite the stratospheric level of the other dragons.
Made her fortune in: Something called "Red-Letter Days," which is apparently a service that allows people to live out their fantasies. You know, a whorehouse. (Kidding, Rachel, kidding!)
If the show were American, her seat would be filled by: Martha Stewart (a bit on the nose, maybe, but so what).
In the movie, she'd be played by: Cate Blanchett (You're welcome!).
Anyway, the aspirants pitch pretty much anything. Products have included umbrella vending machines, origami camping equipment, an automated baby rocker, even an avant-garde circus production company. The aspirants offer an equity stake in their business in exchange for the requested investment. Here is how the negotiations generally proceed:
ASPIRANT: (completes presentation) So, there you have it. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
DRAGON: So, you're asking for 100,000 pounds?
ASPIRANT: That's right.
DRAGON: For what share of the business?
ASPIRANT: 10%.
DRAGON: Right, well, that's far too low. I tell you, I'd be willing to invest 50,000 for 25% of the company, if you can find another dragon willing to put up the rest.
So, basically, people who enter the Den end up (if they're lucky) parting with half their business. And it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the actual "goodness" of the idea. No matter how interesting/potentially lucrative the deal may be, the Dragons ALWAYS want 50%. True, 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing, but there seems something rather distasteful about the whole thing.
Hmmm. . . Cut-throat capitalism combined with reality TV, distasteful? What are the odds?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)