An interesting tidbit from the recent Yahoo! HotJob Survey:
The survey found that only 9% of respondents have used social networking sites to find a job, and only 1% thinks it’s the most effective way to find a job. Moreover, 38% of job seekers feel that using social networks doesn't improve their chances of finding a job. And only 23% of hiring managers and recruiters are using social networks to promote their job openings.
For all this white-hot hype about the "Social Web", there is actually very little evidence that it is having an impact where it matters.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Monday, June 29, 2009
Digital barbarism
I'm 40 percent done reading the new book by Mark Helprin, "Digital Barbarism" (Kindle Edition). Reading is probably not the right word for it, as the activity here is the mental equivalent of forcing my way through a very thick and prickly underbrush in a swampy forest. It is mostly due to his writing style: dense, convoluted, opaque. I find myself having to frequently re-read his meandering sentences to get at the point he is trying to make. It is quite ironic that at the origin of this book lies a New York Times editorial by Mr. Helprin , in which he proposed extending the term of copyright considerably, and for which he was viciously attacked in comments and blogs. He complains of having been grossly misunderstood, and never having advocated extending the period of copyright protection to infinity, as implied by his attackers. Yet what he wrote in the original article was this: "Congress is free to extend at will the term of copyright. It last did so in 1998, and should do so again, as far as it can throw." When read extremely carefully (probably more than once), there is nothing in these sentences that explicitly says "forever", and really nobody, not even US Congress, can throw anything into infinity. But can you blame scores of people for reading into these sentences a desire for infinite extension? Yes, it may be a leap of logic, but a tiny one. And that's the problem with Mr. Helprin: his writing lacks precision, is embellished by his wordsmithing to a point of ambiguity. Some people will claim that he writes beautifully; I'd say, yes, inasmuch as rococo architecture can be considered beautiful.
Aside from my frustration with its language, there is also the fact that this book is a long, tiresome tirade against the modern world. Mr. Helprin gives a tip of his hat to a few good things modern technology has brought, like improvements in medicine, but this is barely noticeable in the thicket of his million complaints, including things as trivial (OK, silly) as the substitution of pen and paper with the computer as the writer's primary tool. (I am fully cognizant of the irony of my reading his book on Kindle, the latest incarnation of the "machine" he seems to despise...).
All in all, this book has been a huge disappointment so far, all the more that I basically agree with many of his points, and share his fear that the support beams of our culture are being turned into dust by swarms of vicious, insatiable termites, whose damaging power is amplified by technology. There are several species of these termites, with different names, including: the Open Source "movement", music "sharing" networks, Creative Commons, etc, but with the same endgame in mind: replacing our property-based society with one based on the old, utopian ideal of "contribute what you can, take what you need". (Given our imperfect nature, this ideal very quickly degenerates into "contribute as little as possible, grab as much as you can get away with", resulting in economical and societal deterioration. XX century has given us plenty of examples of that pathway, but some people still think they can do it better "next time".)
We're very much in need of powerful, precise critics of all that is wrong with the new, "digital" culture, and by golly, there is plenty: from the above mentioned termites, to the sense of entitlement with no bounds ("I want, therefore I am. I am, therefore I shall have"); to the worship of mob rule hidden behind oxymorons like "wisdom of the crowds" or "smart mobs"; to the maniacal tearing down of livelihoods and entire industries, of which newspapers are the latest victim. This criticism, however, cannot be just a temper tantrum, but has to be able to see this unfolding transformation from more than one angle; after all, neither the music industry, nor the newspaper business are entirely blameless in bringing their own demise. Unfortunately, Mr. Helprin is not that kind of critic, and that's OK, as long as his failure on this front does not discourage others.
Aside from my frustration with its language, there is also the fact that this book is a long, tiresome tirade against the modern world. Mr. Helprin gives a tip of his hat to a few good things modern technology has brought, like improvements in medicine, but this is barely noticeable in the thicket of his million complaints, including things as trivial (OK, silly) as the substitution of pen and paper with the computer as the writer's primary tool. (I am fully cognizant of the irony of my reading his book on Kindle, the latest incarnation of the "machine" he seems to despise...).
All in all, this book has been a huge disappointment so far, all the more that I basically agree with many of his points, and share his fear that the support beams of our culture are being turned into dust by swarms of vicious, insatiable termites, whose damaging power is amplified by technology. There are several species of these termites, with different names, including: the Open Source "movement", music "sharing" networks, Creative Commons, etc, but with the same endgame in mind: replacing our property-based society with one based on the old, utopian ideal of "contribute what you can, take what you need". (Given our imperfect nature, this ideal very quickly degenerates into "contribute as little as possible, grab as much as you can get away with", resulting in economical and societal deterioration. XX century has given us plenty of examples of that pathway, but some people still think they can do it better "next time".)
We're very much in need of powerful, precise critics of all that is wrong with the new, "digital" culture, and by golly, there is plenty: from the above mentioned termites, to the sense of entitlement with no bounds ("I want, therefore I am. I am, therefore I shall have"); to the worship of mob rule hidden behind oxymorons like "wisdom of the crowds" or "smart mobs"; to the maniacal tearing down of livelihoods and entire industries, of which newspapers are the latest victim. This criticism, however, cannot be just a temper tantrum, but has to be able to see this unfolding transformation from more than one angle; after all, neither the music industry, nor the newspaper business are entirely blameless in bringing their own demise. Unfortunately, Mr. Helprin is not that kind of critic, and that's OK, as long as his failure on this front does not discourage others.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Managers and leaders
A good quote I heard a few days ago:
Managers make sure we do things right. Leaders make sure we do the right thing.
Managers make sure we do things right. Leaders make sure we do the right thing.
Creative destruction
It is often said that one of the facets of capitalism is "creative destruction": businesses and even entire industries are destroyed to give raise to new products and new ways of making them. Yet rarely do we think of this on the scale of a forest fire, or an earthquake, when all we see around us is massive destruction, with the "creation" part coming much later. Something like the current crisis. This begs the question: is such an orgy of destruction really necessary? Yes, the forest will grow again and new, stronger bridges will replace those that crumbled when the earth shook, but wouldn't it be better if we managed to harvest the timber before it burned, and used the cement to repair the bridges, instead of rebuilding them?
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Dumb individuals, smart crowds??
This crisis has many lessons for us, and one of them is that there is no such thing as "wisdom of the crowds" or "smart mob". I don't know who first came up with this nonsense, but it is so obviously stupid that it is hard to believe these phrases actually entered our vocabulary. What is the premise? That a bunch of people who make stupid decisions on their own would somehow be more capable of making correct decisions by being in a large group? Or is it so that their own stupidity is counterbalanced and diluted by the wisdom of others in that group? (But if that's the case, wouldn't we be better off with just the good decision makers, without the need to counterbalance the fools?)
This fallacy was, supposedly, reinforced by the Word Wide Web, which seemed to prove the Marxist thesis that sufficient quantity will transform itself into quality, in other words, a gigantic pile of garbage will create such a pressure that it will beget diamonds. One has only to read the comments left by readers of articles and blog posts to know that this can't be true. It is, in fact, rather depressing that so many of us are such idiots. Among the 327 comments left undearneath an excellent interview with Niall Ferguson, there are "insighful" analyses like this one:
Sure, this drivel is outnumbered by many more sane - even if negligibly so - comments, but how does this make the crowd of commenters smarter? Garbage does not produce diamonds, just makes them more difficult to find.
This fallacy was, supposedly, reinforced by the Word Wide Web, which seemed to prove the Marxist thesis that sufficient quantity will transform itself into quality, in other words, a gigantic pile of garbage will create such a pressure that it will beget diamonds. One has only to read the comments left by readers of articles and blog posts to know that this can't be true. It is, in fact, rather depressing that so many of us are such idiots. Among the 327 comments left undearneath an excellent interview with Niall Ferguson, there are "insighful" analyses like this one:
Paul Collins from Canada writes: Niall Ferguson is not the voice of reason but is in fact as mad as those in government and in industry. Those in power are mad if they can hold onto power forever. Nothing lasts forever. THESE PEOPLE ARE MAD!
Sure, this drivel is outnumbered by many more sane - even if negligibly so - comments, but how does this make the crowd of commenters smarter? Garbage does not produce diamonds, just makes them more difficult to find.
The opportunity in front of us
The current economic crisis is big and scary, but we would all be much better served viewing it as the huge opportunity it is. (Not unlike the tragedy of 9/11, which was a golden opportunity - to push us toward energy independence among other things - largely squandered later.) It is an opportunity to remake our deeply flawed economic system based on fake prosperity of living beyond our means instead of building real prosperity. I'm therefore quite encouraged by President Obama's apparent thinking on some of the crucial issues that will determine our future: federal budget deficit, healthcare costs, alternative energy, infrastructure. Of course, at the same time I am deeply unnerved by so much power being given to the Democrat-dominated Congress, who will use the excuse of this crisis to go nuts printing money and spending like a drunken sailor more for political than for economic gain. (You don't have to look very closely at the just passed Stimulus Bill to see a pork-laden train. )
There is plenty of worry to go around, including the fact that things will most likely get much worse before they start getting any better, or that there will be a big shift of economic power from debtors (Europe and the US) to creditors (China and Middle East), but if we play this thing right and hold the course, we may emerge with a much more sane and stable system within the next decade. I am optimistic that we're smart enough to do that.
There is plenty of worry to go around, including the fact that things will most likely get much worse before they start getting any better, or that there will be a big shift of economic power from debtors (Europe and the US) to creditors (China and Middle East), but if we play this thing right and hold the course, we may emerge with a much more sane and stable system within the next decade. I am optimistic that we're smart enough to do that.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Are we going to die from it?
I admit, that for a while I doubted that the recession was real. There is no point denying it, since I wrote about my doubts in this very blog. I thought that the media was feeding us stories about recession in order to make sure that a Democrat wins the upcoming presidential election. Well, the recession is very real, although I still believe that the media has a role in making it bigger than it actually would have been. A lot of what is going on is psychological, especially on the important level of consumer spending. Consider than in Michigan, one of the states most severely impacted by the recession, the unemployment is at 10 percent. That is about 4 percent more than the pre-recession level. However, the change in consumer spending is several orders of magnitude greater than the change in unemployment. A friend of mine told me that her business fell by 50 percent - this in relatively affluent Ann Arbor, which is faring much better than the rest of the state; in other places the predicament of small businesses is dire.
Since 95 percent of Michiganders did not see a change in their employment status, what accounts for this profound pullback? In large part, I think, this is fear, driven by the incessant barrage of bad news coming from the media. Having heard the phrase , "since the Great Depression" (as in: "The biggest drop in market capitalization since the Great Depression", "The worst holiday shopping season for retailers since the Great Depression", etc) half a dozen times per day, an American consumer, like the groundhog, hides back in his lair, ensuring that winter will last longer than hoped. Not surprisingly, the fear of recession will make the recession worse.
Why do the media do that? Mostly it's because that's what the media is about: they cling to the idea that only bad news sells, so they'll whip it up for as long as they are able to get people's attention. If there are multiple ways to tell a story, and multiple angles from which to look at it - you can rest assured that the most frightening angle will be presented to the readers or viewers. I also suspect that the election plays some role still: having succeeded in getting Obama elected president, the jubilant media would like to ensure that any good news about the economy does not start coming while Bush is still in office, so that his "legacy" remains as dark as possible. After all, it is bad enough that the war in Iraq appears to be pointing toward success, so the public's attention must be driven away from that, and toward the bleak state of the economy. It will really be interesting to watch whether the tone in the media starts shifting toward more optimism in the later half of January... I do hope that it does, and not because it will prove my point, but primarily because it may help us heal. The media's role so far has been akin to a relative from hell visiting you while you are sick with a bad flu, and telling you stories about avian influenza, and how many people die of flu each year, and the complications you may end up with, and how you had infected many of your coworkers, so now everybody hates your guts, etc. Would it be nice if they told us, for a change, that everything will be alright, and that we've overcome much worse in the past? Is it too much to ask?
Since 95 percent of Michiganders did not see a change in their employment status, what accounts for this profound pullback? In large part, I think, this is fear, driven by the incessant barrage of bad news coming from the media. Having heard the phrase , "since the Great Depression" (as in: "The biggest drop in market capitalization since the Great Depression", "The worst holiday shopping season for retailers since the Great Depression", etc) half a dozen times per day, an American consumer, like the groundhog, hides back in his lair, ensuring that winter will last longer than hoped. Not surprisingly, the fear of recession will make the recession worse.
Why do the media do that? Mostly it's because that's what the media is about: they cling to the idea that only bad news sells, so they'll whip it up for as long as they are able to get people's attention. If there are multiple ways to tell a story, and multiple angles from which to look at it - you can rest assured that the most frightening angle will be presented to the readers or viewers. I also suspect that the election plays some role still: having succeeded in getting Obama elected president, the jubilant media would like to ensure that any good news about the economy does not start coming while Bush is still in office, so that his "legacy" remains as dark as possible. After all, it is bad enough that the war in Iraq appears to be pointing toward success, so the public's attention must be driven away from that, and toward the bleak state of the economy. It will really be interesting to watch whether the tone in the media starts shifting toward more optimism in the later half of January... I do hope that it does, and not because it will prove my point, but primarily because it may help us heal. The media's role so far has been akin to a relative from hell visiting you while you are sick with a bad flu, and telling you stories about avian influenza, and how many people die of flu each year, and the complications you may end up with, and how you had infected many of your coworkers, so now everybody hates your guts, etc. Would it be nice if they told us, for a change, that everything will be alright, and that we've overcome much worse in the past? Is it too much to ask?
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
World to Israel: surrender, already!
Now that Israeli bombs started raining on Hamas in Gaza, the world has sprang into "action": there are condemnations, calls for a "ceasefire" from world leaders, even demonstrations (yes, in Europe, too - big surprise, huh?) in support of the Palestinians. The "world" had been conspicuously silent when Hamas were firing rockets into towns and villages in Israel. Never mind, that those rackets were clearly intended to hit anything and anybody: children, hospitals, schools, homes. Hamas did not even try to pretend, let alone make an actual effort, to aim at military targets. (Of course, the "world" understands that: after all, these are crude rockets, a far cry from the sophisticated weapons in Israel's possessions. The Palestinians can't be held to the same standard, can they? It's like when a maniac runs into a preschool while being chased by police, and starts swinging a chair. He cracks the skulls of a few kids, but then the police open fire trying to kill the guy, and a bullet hits a kid in the leg. Wouldn't you expect the maniac to walk free while the policeman would be dragged through courts and spend years in prison for shooting a child? That's a normal state of affairs in Western societies, the standard way of thinking about such things. )
Just like the US after September 11, Israel is making the grave mistake of responding to terror, of hitting back. That's when the paper-thin veneer of sympathy evaporates, replaced by outrage and by a steady stream of media interviews with assorted "experts", who tell us that this is only going to make matters worse. It will make the terrorists stronger, increase the anger in the muslim world, blah, blah, blah. What's the alternative? The experts don't really say, but one can guess that they would like to say, "Give in, do what they want, and hope for the best. The only way to deal with terrorists is to appease them. They will win, no matter what. Stop wasting your energy fighting them."
In the case of Isreal, giving Hamas what it wants means that the Jews would all have to pack and move out, leaving Isreal to Palestinians. What sane society would agree to follow that kind of advice? This is all the more infuriating that were the Palestinians to overrun Isreal and commit genocide, it would most likely draw only timid verbal condemnations from the world, mild in comaparison to the outrage generated were an Isreali plane to drop a bomb on a school in Gaza by mistake. Now we keep hearing complaints about a "disproportionate" response byIsreal. What would be the "proportionate" response? If the Israel fired rockets indiscrimantely into Gaza, without any pay attention to what they hit? Oh, this would be decried as a barbaric act, a medieval "eye for an eye", so unbecoming of a modern, democratic state. In other words, no matter what you do, you are always in the wrong. Lesson: do what you think is right and don't give a damn about the world's opinion.
Just like the US after September 11, Israel is making the grave mistake of responding to terror, of hitting back. That's when the paper-thin veneer of sympathy evaporates, replaced by outrage and by a steady stream of media interviews with assorted "experts", who tell us that this is only going to make matters worse. It will make the terrorists stronger, increase the anger in the muslim world, blah, blah, blah. What's the alternative? The experts don't really say, but one can guess that they would like to say, "Give in, do what they want, and hope for the best. The only way to deal with terrorists is to appease them. They will win, no matter what. Stop wasting your energy fighting them."
In the case of Isreal, giving Hamas what it wants means that the Jews would all have to pack and move out, leaving Isreal to Palestinians. What sane society would agree to follow that kind of advice? This is all the more infuriating that were the Palestinians to overrun Isreal and commit genocide, it would most likely draw only timid verbal condemnations from the world, mild in comaparison to the outrage generated were an Isreali plane to drop a bomb on a school in Gaza by mistake. Now we keep hearing complaints about a "disproportionate" response byIsreal. What would be the "proportionate" response? If the Israel fired rockets indiscrimantely into Gaza, without any pay attention to what they hit? Oh, this would be decried as a barbaric act, a medieval "eye for an eye", so unbecoming of a modern, democratic state. In other words, no matter what you do, you are always in the wrong. Lesson: do what you think is right and don't give a damn about the world's opinion.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Dis-service
It is shocking how much the culture of customer service has deteriorated in some industries in just a decade or so. Sure, the recorded voice will tell you, "Your call is important to us", while placing you on hold, and the person at the other end (once you get connected to a real person) will apologize for the inconvenience you experienced, but in many cases it is just a veneer on a very rotten material. Not in all cases, because there are still examples of great service: recently I had a problem with Amazon.com's website and called the phone number for help. The recording told me that no representatives were currently available and asked me to leave a phone number, so that they could call me back. I did leave a number and a few minutes later received a phone call from a person who then proceeded to resolve my problem. It truly was a very positive experience.
Airlines, on the other hand... My very recent trip was a reminder of why I started to hate flying. From an exciting and somewhat exhilarating experience, flying has transmogrified into this experiment in how much humiliation and bad service can customers endure. For starters, I was shocked to discover that the airline I fly the most is now charging $15 per checked-in bag! I was not warned about that (my last flight had been in June) when I purchased the tickets online. Had I known, I would have packed smaller toiletries and avoided the 5 oz rule. At the airport I was facing the choice between throwing out my toothpaste, deodorant, and a couple other things, or paying the $15. I chose the latter, although mad as hell.
I don't even want to mention this humiliating circus of taking off your shoes, pulling out your laptop, putting all your toiletries into a quart-size ziploc bag, etc. You can't really blame it on the airlines - it was a bunch of mass-murdering fanatics plus an overreacting government, whom we got to thank for this. However, was I really naive to think that maybe these 15 bucks, plus the fact that more people would now try to squeeze their luggage as carry-on, would result in shorter waiting at the carousel? Yes, I was very naive. So, the airlines decided to start taking more of our money, without giving us more in return?Interesting.
There is also this not-so-new idea of no longer serving food on flights, but instead, selling boxes of junk food. At first they were still giving away these tiny bags of pretzels, but that apparently proved too expensive, so no pretzels or peanuts for you, unless you pay $5. Next step - and I'm sure it is coming - charging a buck or two for the sodas. This is going to be a tad problematic, because we've been told that it is crucial to drink enough liquids during long flights, so initially they will get away with this by offering bad tasting water for free. However, that will soon be taken away and you, "our valued passenger", will be on your own.
When I think about it, it is not a terrible idea per se, this charging for everything separately. If I don't like airline "food", why include it in the ticket price? Same with hotels: I don't watch TV, so I actually would be grateful if they took it out of my bill. What I don't like is the sneaky, arrogant way they are doing it. If you fly only a few time a year, like I do, you're going to be shocked by increasing cost and deteriorating service. It's like seeing a patient with incurable, slow-growth cancer every couple of weeks - each time you are shocked by how much he changed.
I know, the times when people dressed up before a flight, when the smiling stewardess brought you food and goodies, and real silverware, are not coming back. But how about bringing back some dignity and choice? If they don't want to offer free food, maybe they can sell decent meals instead of these horrible packages of junk? Let me buy a salad, but don't price it at $25 a bowl, please.
What about leg room? I obviously can't aford (or I am not stupid enough) to pay the horrendous prices for 1st class tickets, but I would probably pay reasonable amount for a little bit more space, so that I don't feel like a sardine in a can for 4 or 8 hours. How is this possible that in a country as entrepreneurial and competitive as ours, nobody has yet come up with an idea to beat the airlines at customers service? It's gotten so bad, that I would not really take a lot. Not even real silverware.
Airlines, on the other hand... My very recent trip was a reminder of why I started to hate flying. From an exciting and somewhat exhilarating experience, flying has transmogrified into this experiment in how much humiliation and bad service can customers endure. For starters, I was shocked to discover that the airline I fly the most is now charging $15 per checked-in bag! I was not warned about that (my last flight had been in June) when I purchased the tickets online. Had I known, I would have packed smaller toiletries and avoided the 5 oz rule. At the airport I was facing the choice between throwing out my toothpaste, deodorant, and a couple other things, or paying the $15. I chose the latter, although mad as hell.
I don't even want to mention this humiliating circus of taking off your shoes, pulling out your laptop, putting all your toiletries into a quart-size ziploc bag, etc. You can't really blame it on the airlines - it was a bunch of mass-murdering fanatics plus an overreacting government, whom we got to thank for this. However, was I really naive to think that maybe these 15 bucks, plus the fact that more people would now try to squeeze their luggage as carry-on, would result in shorter waiting at the carousel? Yes, I was very naive. So, the airlines decided to start taking more of our money, without giving us more in return?Interesting.
There is also this not-so-new idea of no longer serving food on flights, but instead, selling boxes of junk food. At first they were still giving away these tiny bags of pretzels, but that apparently proved too expensive, so no pretzels or peanuts for you, unless you pay $5. Next step - and I'm sure it is coming - charging a buck or two for the sodas. This is going to be a tad problematic, because we've been told that it is crucial to drink enough liquids during long flights, so initially they will get away with this by offering bad tasting water for free. However, that will soon be taken away and you, "our valued passenger", will be on your own.
When I think about it, it is not a terrible idea per se, this charging for everything separately. If I don't like airline "food", why include it in the ticket price? Same with hotels: I don't watch TV, so I actually would be grateful if they took it out of my bill. What I don't like is the sneaky, arrogant way they are doing it. If you fly only a few time a year, like I do, you're going to be shocked by increasing cost and deteriorating service. It's like seeing a patient with incurable, slow-growth cancer every couple of weeks - each time you are shocked by how much he changed.
I know, the times when people dressed up before a flight, when the smiling stewardess brought you food and goodies, and real silverware, are not coming back. But how about bringing back some dignity and choice? If they don't want to offer free food, maybe they can sell decent meals instead of these horrible packages of junk? Let me buy a salad, but don't price it at $25 a bowl, please.
What about leg room? I obviously can't aford (or I am not stupid enough) to pay the horrendous prices for 1st class tickets, but I would probably pay reasonable amount for a little bit more space, so that I don't feel like a sardine in a can for 4 or 8 hours. How is this possible that in a country as entrepreneurial and competitive as ours, nobody has yet come up with an idea to beat the airlines at customers service? It's gotten so bad, that I would not really take a lot. Not even real silverware.
Tipping point
I'm out of town, staying in a hotel, eating out, and so once again I'm confronting the issue of tips. There is something about this convoluted scheme of handing out "gratuities" to some people that irks me. Now, I'm not a bad tipper. I usually give more that 15% in restaurants, and leave 2-3 per day for cleaning my hotel room. I'm kind of used to it, so it doesn't irritate me very much, although it's the whole idea I'm really against. First of all: why do we tip some people, and not others? Is it because they provide "direct service" to us, like the waiter who interrupts my meal three times asking cheerfully, "How's everything?", and refilling my Diet Coke, event though I never asked for it and still have three quarters of it left? Well, how about that kid in the store, who bags groceries and wishes everyone a good day? As far as I know, nobody's giving him tips...
Is it becuase they have such lousy wages that we have to give them tips, so that they can make ends meet? There is some thruth to it, of course. I worked as a waiter myself, and the salary I drew was about half the minimum wage. The tips more than made up for it. But heck, if we did not tip the waiters, the restaurant owners would have to pay them better wages, not? I know that many waiters would not like it, becuase some are taking home pretty good wages in those tips, most of those tax-free.
Again, what about other people who are gettig shitty wages, like security guards or supermarket cashiers? Why are the waiters, taxi drivers, and hotel maids more deserving of our generocity? Or is this becuase in our egalitarian society we now consider the act of serving us, taking our hair out of the shower drains, making our beds, wiping our tables, bringing our food, somewhat demeaning? And the tip is supposed to take the edge off our guilt somewhat? But aren't there other, even more "demeaning" jobs that are not to receive gratuities?  Say, the lady at the cleaner's, who takes our sweaty, smelly shirts to wash and iron them?
I can't see good logic behind it, and so it irritates me, like one more annoying social convention without merit. I frankly try to avoid places and situations where I might be expected to tip. For eating out, I prefer the self-serve places, where you order and pay at the counter. Some of them are actually nicer than many restaurants, like the Wildflower Bread Company I found in Sedona, AZ. However, and this pisses me off to no end, in many of thes places you can spot jars with a label "Tips" at the counter. (Some try to look lighthearted with their "Feeling tipsy?" labels, and those are especially annoying. What, you put a shot of whiskey in my coffee??) This is really no different than panhandling, except that it happens indoors. What am I supposed to tip for? I will stand in the damn line, will pay for the coffee myself, will take it to my table, will put sugar and cream in it, will put the cup in the wastebasked when finished... Hell, maybe I should get a tip for all this serving I'll do??
I don't mind paying for things, even giving money away for charitable causes, but this tipping charade I'd much rather do without.
Is it becuase they have such lousy wages that we have to give them tips, so that they can make ends meet? There is some thruth to it, of course. I worked as a waiter myself, and the salary I drew was about half the minimum wage. The tips more than made up for it. But heck, if we did not tip the waiters, the restaurant owners would have to pay them better wages, not? I know that many waiters would not like it, becuase some are taking home pretty good wages in those tips, most of those tax-free.
Again, what about other people who are gettig shitty wages, like security guards or supermarket cashiers? Why are the waiters, taxi drivers, and hotel maids more deserving of our generocity? Or is this becuase in our egalitarian society we now consider the act of serving us, taking our hair out of the shower drains, making our beds, wiping our tables, bringing our food, somewhat demeaning? And the tip is supposed to take the edge off our guilt somewhat? But aren't there other, even more "demeaning" jobs that are not to receive gratuities?  Say, the lady at the cleaner's, who takes our sweaty, smelly shirts to wash and iron them?
I can't see good logic behind it, and so it irritates me, like one more annoying social convention without merit. I frankly try to avoid places and situations where I might be expected to tip. For eating out, I prefer the self-serve places, where you order and pay at the counter. Some of them are actually nicer than many restaurants, like the Wildflower Bread Company I found in Sedona, AZ. However, and this pisses me off to no end, in many of thes places you can spot jars with a label "Tips" at the counter. (Some try to look lighthearted with their "Feeling tipsy?" labels, and those are especially annoying. What, you put a shot of whiskey in my coffee??) This is really no different than panhandling, except that it happens indoors. What am I supposed to tip for? I will stand in the damn line, will pay for the coffee myself, will take it to my table, will put sugar and cream in it, will put the cup in the wastebasked when finished... Hell, maybe I should get a tip for all this serving I'll do??
I don't mind paying for things, even giving money away for charitable causes, but this tipping charade I'd much rather do without.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Quote of the month
"I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." - Barack Obama, presidential candidate 2008. Could he really be that honest?
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Fearmongers
How long we have been subjected to the incessant talk about recession? A year? More? I have this unfortunate habit of listening to NPR in the morning, while eating breakfast, and then at dinnertime, so I have had plenty of exposure to the not-so-subtle message that we should all be very afraid. They have been laying it pretty thick, really. They've brought in economists, who confirmed time and again that things are so bad, they hadn't seen it that bad in their lifetimes... If it's not a recession yet, it's for sure just around the corner. Heck, they've been feeding us stories about the Great Depression! (So it's not about Recession anymore... It's the Great Depression we're staring in the face!)
What's with this fear-mongering? I know that the US economy is not doing great at the moment, and that the housing crisis is very real. But why do I hear glee in the voices of NPR reporters emphasizing the negative? Whenever there is good economic news, it's always followed by "but.." or "however..." It's approching parody, like the recent headline that read: "Gas prices are falling and why this not such a good thing." Sweet Jesus! We've been talked to ad nauseam about how the high price of gas is straining the economy, with SUVs clogging the dealearships, carmakers laying off workers, food prices going up, etc, etc. Now, when the oil prices seem to be showing a downward trend, we ought to be worrying that it is not a good thing after all! What the bloody hell?
The naive explanation is that "good news is no news" and that the media simply has to feed on bad news, and if there isn't any, it'll create it. However, I think that there is a deeper layer to it, and his name is Barack Obama. The media is so invested in having him win the presidency that it uses all tricks at its disposal to promote his candidacy, short of telling us straight to vote for him. I'm certain the talk of recession is a part of it. The more we're scared, the more we will be willing to embrace the "change" Obama is promising. There is very little doubt in my mind that, should he win, the word "recession" will quickly disappear from the media's coverage of the economy.
There is a precedent: remember the 1992 election, when George Bush the Elder was defeated with "It's the ecomomy, stupid!"? Back then the media whipped up the bad news about the economy, to almost immediately change its tune after Clinton's victory. It's as if the election magically cured whatever was ailing the US stock market. It's the same screenbook, different actors.
However, I do wonder if they are not going to overplay their hand this time. I can't be the only one who's noticing the pattern here. And there is also a different pattern that manifested itself in past elections: the media thinks that the American electorate is stupid and can be easily manipulated. Yet time and again they've been proven wrong on that score. I'm fairly positive it will repeat itself as well. Unlike the media, I have quite a bit of trust in the voting public.
What's with this fear-mongering? I know that the US economy is not doing great at the moment, and that the housing crisis is very real. But why do I hear glee in the voices of NPR reporters emphasizing the negative? Whenever there is good economic news, it's always followed by "but.." or "however..." It's approching parody, like the recent headline that read: "Gas prices are falling and why this not such a good thing." Sweet Jesus! We've been talked to ad nauseam about how the high price of gas is straining the economy, with SUVs clogging the dealearships, carmakers laying off workers, food prices going up, etc, etc. Now, when the oil prices seem to be showing a downward trend, we ought to be worrying that it is not a good thing after all! What the bloody hell?
The naive explanation is that "good news is no news" and that the media simply has to feed on bad news, and if there isn't any, it'll create it. However, I think that there is a deeper layer to it, and his name is Barack Obama. The media is so invested in having him win the presidency that it uses all tricks at its disposal to promote his candidacy, short of telling us straight to vote for him. I'm certain the talk of recession is a part of it. The more we're scared, the more we will be willing to embrace the "change" Obama is promising. There is very little doubt in my mind that, should he win, the word "recession" will quickly disappear from the media's coverage of the economy.
There is a precedent: remember the 1992 election, when George Bush the Elder was defeated with "It's the ecomomy, stupid!"? Back then the media whipped up the bad news about the economy, to almost immediately change its tune after Clinton's victory. It's as if the election magically cured whatever was ailing the US stock market. It's the same screenbook, different actors.
However, I do wonder if they are not going to overplay their hand this time. I can't be the only one who's noticing the pattern here. And there is also a different pattern that manifested itself in past elections: the media thinks that the American electorate is stupid and can be easily manipulated. Yet time and again they've been proven wrong on that score. I'm fairly positive it will repeat itself as well. Unlike the media, I have quite a bit of trust in the voting public.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Evil DRM
I have always believed in paying artists for their work. This included, of course, music. Except for a short-lived "lets give it a try and see what the fuss is about", I did not participate in peer-to-peer sharing. Early on I signed up for the subscription-based Musicmatch, and was pretty happy with it, occasionally buying songs and creating compilations for listening in my car. Obviously, I did not expect that I will end up feeling like a total sucker, thanks to that evil scheme that must have been concocted in the devil's head: DRM (Digital Rights Management).
I had misgivings about it from the very beginning; initially. Musicmatch restricted transfer of purchased songs to a limited number of instances (5 or 7 in a lifetime, if I remember correctly). I was not planning to buy an MP3 player any time soon, but I had a laptop and a desktop, which I used to replace every 2-3 years. This meant that only after two replacement cycles I would no longer be able to transfer my music to new machines. What then? Luckily, this was amended later and I could only have 3 "active" devices at any time, but I could "deactivate" a device, and transfer purchased songs to a new one. This looked like I could keep moving the music I owned from one computer to another for as long as I lived.
I had no idea that the licenses for my songs were tied to the service I bought it from: Musicmatch. So when Musicmatch was acquired by Yahoo!, I faced the real prospect of losing the ability to transfer my songs, unless I agreed to move to the new service, which would then continue to provide the licenses. I did move and for a while everything seemed fine, except that every now and then the DRM system used by Yahoo! would stop recognizing my ownership of certain tracks and would force me to re-license them. This was but the first circle of the DRM hell...
A few days ago I found out that 40 of my songs were no longer showing as licensed... My attemtp to re-license them produced errors that Musicmatch was no longer available... This, many months after I transfered my subscription to Yahoo! and all my songs to their DRM system. What the bloody hell?? When I contacted Yahoo! customer service, the answer I received was that since these songs had been purchased from Musicmatch, they could no longer help me with licensing... Musicmatch no longer existed.
Well, I knew that! So I argued that I transferred to Yahoo! and expected Yahoo! to provide licenses for these songs, as I had been promised. This generated a response that "it does not matter where you transferred them. It only matters that they were purchased from Musicmatch". This is just too f..d up to comprehend! Imagine buying a CD from your local music store. This CD will play only for as long as that store remains in business. A new chain takes over the store and agrees to keep allowing you to play the CD, if you continue to buy music from them. Then, one day, you still have your CD in pristine condition, but it stops playing. You complain and hear, "Sorry, but you bought this CD from someone else. Can't help you". If that's not getting screwed, I don't know what is...
So I feel like a total idiot for being honest and law-abiding, and getting suckered into the game of Let's Screw the Loyal Music Fans Who Actually Want to Pay Us Money. Would you buy a CD, whose playback depended on the existence of the store you bough it from? Or a car that runs only for as long as the dealer that sold it to you is still in business? You would not even consider such a deal, beacuse that would not be a deal, that would be a con. And that's exactly what was done to me (and countless other): we were conned.Â
Now Yahoo! is getting out of the music business and offering its customers transfer to Rhapsody. I'm afraid that this will just push me deeper into the DRM hell, so I think I will decline. Should I reconsider my decision not to be a part of "illegal" sharing?  Well, if the "legal" side of this business means that I'm getting robbed at will, then I think the answer to that is not as simple as I thought it to be.
I had misgivings about it from the very beginning; initially. Musicmatch restricted transfer of purchased songs to a limited number of instances (5 or 7 in a lifetime, if I remember correctly). I was not planning to buy an MP3 player any time soon, but I had a laptop and a desktop, which I used to replace every 2-3 years. This meant that only after two replacement cycles I would no longer be able to transfer my music to new machines. What then? Luckily, this was amended later and I could only have 3 "active" devices at any time, but I could "deactivate" a device, and transfer purchased songs to a new one. This looked like I could keep moving the music I owned from one computer to another for as long as I lived.
I had no idea that the licenses for my songs were tied to the service I bought it from: Musicmatch. So when Musicmatch was acquired by Yahoo!, I faced the real prospect of losing the ability to transfer my songs, unless I agreed to move to the new service, which would then continue to provide the licenses. I did move and for a while everything seemed fine, except that every now and then the DRM system used by Yahoo! would stop recognizing my ownership of certain tracks and would force me to re-license them. This was but the first circle of the DRM hell...
A few days ago I found out that 40 of my songs were no longer showing as licensed... My attemtp to re-license them produced errors that Musicmatch was no longer available... This, many months after I transfered my subscription to Yahoo! and all my songs to their DRM system. What the bloody hell?? When I contacted Yahoo! customer service, the answer I received was that since these songs had been purchased from Musicmatch, they could no longer help me with licensing... Musicmatch no longer existed.
Well, I knew that! So I argued that I transferred to Yahoo! and expected Yahoo! to provide licenses for these songs, as I had been promised. This generated a response that "it does not matter where you transferred them. It only matters that they were purchased from Musicmatch". This is just too f..d up to comprehend! Imagine buying a CD from your local music store. This CD will play only for as long as that store remains in business. A new chain takes over the store and agrees to keep allowing you to play the CD, if you continue to buy music from them. Then, one day, you still have your CD in pristine condition, but it stops playing. You complain and hear, "Sorry, but you bought this CD from someone else. Can't help you". If that's not getting screwed, I don't know what is...
So I feel like a total idiot for being honest and law-abiding, and getting suckered into the game of Let's Screw the Loyal Music Fans Who Actually Want to Pay Us Money. Would you buy a CD, whose playback depended on the existence of the store you bough it from? Or a car that runs only for as long as the dealer that sold it to you is still in business? You would not even consider such a deal, beacuse that would not be a deal, that would be a con. And that's exactly what was done to me (and countless other): we were conned.Â
Now Yahoo! is getting out of the music business and offering its customers transfer to Rhapsody. I'm afraid that this will just push me deeper into the DRM hell, so I think I will decline. Should I reconsider my decision not to be a part of "illegal" sharing?  Well, if the "legal" side of this business means that I'm getting robbed at will, then I think the answer to that is not as simple as I thought it to be.
Monday, August 4, 2008
On blogging
It's been a long while since I've posted to this blog... Primarily because it was spring, and now it is summer, with so many better things to do than sit in front of a computer. Or worry about politics, for that matter. I've been going back and forth about whether to pick this up at all, trying to answer a seemingly simple question: why am I doing this? I am not a compulsive writer, so I don't really have to write. I also know that what I'm writing here can come back to haunt me. After all, I work at a university, where views like mine are probably in minority, or at least not openly expressed. Someone had already complained about my views, or so I heard... So I probably shouldn't write. Yet these are some of the reasons why I do post things on my website and on my blog: I want to try to find my voice and I don't want to succumb to fear, which seems to be permeating this society. (Note: I'm planning to cover this particular issue in a subsequent post).
I do a lot of thinking, and sometimes in a way too fragmented a manner, and writing helps me slow down, formulate my thoughts, think about something for a while, instead of jumping from one issue to another like a dragonfly on speed. I also want to assert my right to speak my mind. It's a basic human right, dammit! If what I write disturbs you, don't read it. There are mllions, perhaps billions other pages on the Web - go and find something you like. Disagreement is OK, it's even welcome. I don't claim that I know everything or that my views are not subject to change. They are, and I can be persuaded that I was wrong and someone else was right. What are really hate are people who think that views different from theirs should be supressed, and people who hold them, punished. There are depressingly many such people in the United States. Perhaps fewer than in most (all?) other countries, but still...
I do a lot of thinking, and sometimes in a way too fragmented a manner, and writing helps me slow down, formulate my thoughts, think about something for a while, instead of jumping from one issue to another like a dragonfly on speed. I also want to assert my right to speak my mind. It's a basic human right, dammit! If what I write disturbs you, don't read it. There are mllions, perhaps billions other pages on the Web - go and find something you like. Disagreement is OK, it's even welcome. I don't claim that I know everything or that my views are not subject to change. They are, and I can be persuaded that I was wrong and someone else was right. What are really hate are people who think that views different from theirs should be supressed, and people who hold them, punished. There are depressingly many such people in the United States. Perhaps fewer than in most (all?) other countries, but still...
Monday, March 3, 2008
Presidential address
I got this in e-mail today, and I think it's quite good.
WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT TO TURN ON THE TV AND HEAR ANY U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH? (Oh yes, it would.)
My Fellow Americans: As you all know, the defeat of the Iraq regime has been completed. Since congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraq is complete.
This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq. This action will be complete within 30 days. It is now time to begin the reckoning.
Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short. The United Kingdom, Spain, Bulgaria, Australia , and Poland are some of the countries listed there.
The other list contains every one not on the first list. Most of the world's nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening.
Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations on List 2 ceases immediately and indefinitely. The money saved during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the Iraqi war. THEN EVERY YEAR THERE AFTER IT'LL GO TO OUR SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM SO IT WON'T GO BROKE IN 20 YEARS.
The American people are no longer going to pour money into third world Hellholes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption. Need help with a famine? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France.
In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this money toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home. On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the earth.
Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize? Try France or maybe China.
I am ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with France, Germany , and Russia. Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are retiring from NATO as well. Bonne chance, mez amies.
I have instructed the Mayor of New York City to begin towing the many UN diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid parking tickets to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I don't care about whatever treaty pertains to this. You creeps have tens of thousands of unpaid tickets. Pay those tickets tomorrow or watch your precious Benzes, Beamers and limos be turned over to some of the finest chop shops in the world. I love New York.
A special note to our neighbors. Canada is on List 2. Since we are likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not pissing us off for a change. Mexico is also on List 2 its president and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude adjustment. I will have a couple extra thousand tanks and infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I am going to put'em? Yep, border security.
Oh, by the way, the United States is abrogating the NAFTA treaty - starting now.We are tired of the one-way highway. Immediately, we'll be drilling for oil in Alaska - which will take care of this country's oil needs for decades to come. If you're an environmentalist who opposes this decision, I refer you to List 2 above: pick a country and move there.
It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them by saying, "darn tootin."
Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet. It is time to eliminate hunger in America. It is time to eliminate homelessness in America. To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thank you guys. We owe you and we won't forget. To the nations on List 2, a final thought: You might want to learn to speak Arabic.
God bless America. Thank you and good night.
WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT TO TURN ON THE TV AND HEAR ANY U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH? (Oh yes, it would.)
My Fellow Americans: As you all know, the defeat of the Iraq regime has been completed. Since congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraq is complete.
This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq. This action will be complete within 30 days. It is now time to begin the reckoning.
Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short. The United Kingdom, Spain, Bulgaria, Australia , and Poland are some of the countries listed there.
The other list contains every one not on the first list. Most of the world's nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening.
Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations on List 2 ceases immediately and indefinitely. The money saved during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the Iraqi war. THEN EVERY YEAR THERE AFTER IT'LL GO TO OUR SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM SO IT WON'T GO BROKE IN 20 YEARS.
The American people are no longer going to pour money into third world Hellholes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption. Need help with a famine? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France.
In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this money toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home. On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the earth.
Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize? Try France or maybe China.
I am ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with France, Germany , and Russia. Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are retiring from NATO as well. Bonne chance, mez amies.
I have instructed the Mayor of New York City to begin towing the many UN diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid parking tickets to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I don't care about whatever treaty pertains to this. You creeps have tens of thousands of unpaid tickets. Pay those tickets tomorrow or watch your precious Benzes, Beamers and limos be turned over to some of the finest chop shops in the world. I love New York.
A special note to our neighbors. Canada is on List 2. Since we are likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not pissing us off for a change. Mexico is also on List 2 its president and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude adjustment. I will have a couple extra thousand tanks and infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I am going to put'em? Yep, border security.
Oh, by the way, the United States is abrogating the NAFTA treaty - starting now.We are tired of the one-way highway. Immediately, we'll be drilling for oil in Alaska - which will take care of this country's oil needs for decades to come. If you're an environmentalist who opposes this decision, I refer you to List 2 above: pick a country and move there.
It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them by saying, "darn tootin."
Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet. It is time to eliminate hunger in America. It is time to eliminate homelessness in America. To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thank you guys. We owe you and we won't forget. To the nations on List 2, a final thought: You might want to learn to speak Arabic.
God bless America. Thank you and good night.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Quotes of the week
There are numerous great quotes in the fascinating and much needed bestseller by Jonah Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism", but here are two good ones I just remembered to copy:
Fascists famously ruled by terror. Political correctness isn't literally terroristic, but it does govern through fear. No serious person can deny that the grievance politics of the American left keeps decent people in a constant state of fright--they are afraid to say the wrong word, utter the wrong thought, offend the wrong constituency.
But if there is ever a fascist takeover in America, it will come not in the form of storm troopers kicking down doors but with lawyers and social workers saying, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Dying with dignity
 Although "struggle" is not a good choice of a word here, considering that Morrie didn't seem to be "fighting" the illness so much as accepting it, even learning from it. From the vantage point of a man with an irrevocable death sentence, Morrie is dispensing wisdom on everything: from culture, to marriage, to emotions, to money, to death. This book moved me and annoyed me.  It moved me because I could not help but admire his nearly stoic attitude toward his terrible physical deterioration and the suffering that came with it - not that it would necessarily have been my choice in similar circumstances. Â
The sense of annoyance came from many angles. Only a small part was caused by the fact that a lot of the wisom being passed onto the reader was pretty trivial and terribly cliché: money doesn't buy happiness; we will all die eventually; having a sense of purpose in life makes it worthwhile; family and friends are very important; we are living too fast; ours is a materialistic society; etc. After all, having had these pearls of wisdom repeated ad nauseam doesn't make them less valid.
What frustrated me the most didn't even have to do anything with Morrie himself, or what he said. It was this: here's a sweet, smart, old guy, who made the choice of waiting for his death, of enduring whatever pain and indignity were thrown his way. He also made a decision to be increasingly dependent on others, including having his ass wiped. (He feared that moment, considering this a kind of a threshold of humiliation, and yet he quickly adjusted to it, even... enjoyed it to some extent, comparing his dependence to that of a child...) He was celebrated for it - NBC's Ted Koppel interviewed him three times, at different stages of the disease. Scores of people came to visit him, many more wrote him letters. Obviously, he inspired a lot of people. That's great. But what about the people who want to make a different choice?
 There are those of us, who don't want to follow Mr. Schwartz's path, passively waiting for nature to take its course, in whatever cruel manner it chooses. Those, who would prefer to choose the moment and maner od their death themselves. Isn't it a legitimate and noble choice, worth celebrating? The book talks about the kind of dying that allows to say final good-byes, and be surrounded by one's loved ones while doing so. If that's so desireable - and it is - what is then wrong with saying good-byes and then quietly and peacefully taking one's own life?
People who help a dying person by adjusting his pillows, tending to his sores, dulling his pain with potent painkillers, and  yes, wiping his ass, are admired as persons of compassion. Rightly so. At the same time those who would help that person die with dignity by committing suicide are treated as villains, threatened with jail. Why is one kind of compassion better than the other? Why isn't it considered an inalienable human right to refuse to endure the pain and indignity of a terrible illness? We have laws against torturing people, and would applaud if someone helped a victim of torture run away from his tormentors. We would condemn a doctor working alongside the torturers, who is making sure that the victim doesn't die prematurely and will be able to endure more pain. Why is then OK for nature to torture people and for doctors to be enablers, who prolong the agony?
I know, there are guns, and rope, and poison, and sharp blades, and plastic bags, and tall buildings, and myriad other ways by which people can kill themselves if they want to. But what if they can't? What if they are paralyzed and unable to pull the trigger, unable to get to the top floor of a parking structure to jump off from? And what about the dignity? There is nothing dignified in a wife coming home to find her terminally ill husband with his head blown off. Or hanging from the rafters in the garage.
Of course, there is the "slippery slope" argument: if we make dying nice and easy, will we start nudging at first, and then pressuring ill people toward that easy way out? And what about those suffering from depression, who would now find it so much easier to act on their impulses? Those are legitimate concerns, but shouldn't our advanced society be able to address them? Shouldn't we at least start talking about ways of addressing them?
Tellingly, even Morrie had his limits of acceptance. In his final interview with Ted Koppel he mentioned
 "other people who suffered from ALS [...], some of them famous, such as the brilliant physicist Stephen Hawking [...] He lived with a hole in his throat, spoke through a computer synthesizer, typed words by batting his eyes as a sensor picked up the movement. This was admirable, but this was not the way Morrie wanted to live. "
 What if he was dealt this kind of card? Would there still be a bestseller about Morrie Schwartz, the mild-mannered professor who stoically endured to the end?
Monday, December 31, 2007
Kool-Aid or Diet Coke?
I know I should stay away from politics, for my own sanity's sake. I know it is poison, and yet, how can I? It's not a matter of addiction - although, in my case, there is some of that, too - but if I stay away, I will have no voice and will thus let somone else speak on my behalf... "Those absent are wrong" ("Nieobecni nie maja racji"), said the chairman of the Union of the Socialist Youth of Poland, sometime in the 80's. What he meant by it is that the voices of those who are not participating do not count and can be dismissed, as if they were plainly wrong. I remember disagreeing with him (only in my mind, of course - there was no opportunity for open disagreement), because not participating was the only way of saying "no". What else can you do but refuse to participate in elections where the only candidates were those from the communist party and its puppet associations? Yes, you could go to the polls, cross all the candidates out, write "F..k you!" on the ballot, and deposit it in the ballot box. (That's what I did the first and only time my father forced me to go and "vote"). However, the only outcome of that "protest" was that the state-controlled media could say the next day that "98 percent of Poles went to the polls yesterday to express the will of the people in our socialist democracy". (Sadly, those phony numbers were used by some "intellectuals" in the West to point out the sorry state of Western democracies, where the participation was mere 60 percent or less...)
I know how divisive politics can be, yet for some years after arriving in the US I have been quite angry at the fact that politics was almost never discussed: not at a work, not at parties, not with friends... It was so different from Poland, where politics was a very frequent topic of conversation, even in times, when openly griping about communism could land one in hot water. There was no time that was not right for talking politics. I remember heated discussions - well, quarrels really - at the Christmas Eve dinner at my grandmother's, where there seemed to be 10 different opinions among the 8 of us... And so I saw the reluctance of Americans to openly broach the subject of their political views as a sign of cowardice. Now I know better and see it as a sign of maturity and good judgment.
Perhaps it is a cultural difference, or a matter of not having been accustomed to democracy long enough, but Poles seem to have a very hard time disagreeing amicably with each other over politics. It's tearing not only the country apart, but families and friends as well. I just read this cautionary tale in the blog by a Polish writer and journalist, Malgorzata Karolina Piekarska. Unfortunately, it is in Polish, so let me summarize it for you:
She invited a bunch of close friends to a party at her home. Unfortunately, it fell on an "election weekend", so the conversation inevitably (?) drifted toward the candidates and their platforms:
Although she doesn't say that any divorce proceedings were started as a result of these fights, some friendships did suffer damage, possibly irreparable. When I think about how badly Americans are now divided along the political fault lines, and what issues are at stake in this division, I feel grateful that we still seem to have a good measure of civility left, that all this shouting and name calling is only temporary, and is already starting to subside. Perhaps the blessing lies in our short attention spans, or that we learned not to take politics and (especially) politicians seriously - whatever it is, given the number of guns in private hands, I'm really, really glad we know when to pull back and talk about the weather. :-)
I know how divisive politics can be, yet for some years after arriving in the US I have been quite angry at the fact that politics was almost never discussed: not at a work, not at parties, not with friends... It was so different from Poland, where politics was a very frequent topic of conversation, even in times, when openly griping about communism could land one in hot water. There was no time that was not right for talking politics. I remember heated discussions - well, quarrels really - at the Christmas Eve dinner at my grandmother's, where there seemed to be 10 different opinions among the 8 of us... And so I saw the reluctance of Americans to openly broach the subject of their political views as a sign of cowardice. Now I know better and see it as a sign of maturity and good judgment.
Perhaps it is a cultural difference, or a matter of not having been accustomed to democracy long enough, but Poles seem to have a very hard time disagreeing amicably with each other over politics. It's tearing not only the country apart, but families and friends as well. I just read this cautionary tale in the blog by a Polish writer and journalist, Malgorzata Karolina Piekarska. Unfortunately, it is in Polish, so let me summarize it for you:
She invited a bunch of close friends to a party at her home. Unfortunately, it fell on an "election weekend", so the conversation inevitably (?) drifted toward the candidates and their platforms:
"It started with watching the Prime Minister's speech. With timid comments. [...] With time, the comments became more and more blunt. Finally, the guests started openly expressing their views. [...] I was called into the kitchen. Here, my two married friends were arguing. He'll vote differently than she, because he's smart and she's dumb. He'll probably divorce her, because he no longer has respect for her. Doesn't matter that they have a child. [...] She is stupid and her views are stupid and harmful. [...] In the melee, for the first time, it got to male-on-female fights for political reasons - kicks, name-calling, even pulling each other's hair! Nobody was dancing. Almost everybody was arguing. One of the guests, on wobbly legs, showed his political adversaries his genitals. I swear that my friends are educated people. This is the so-called intellectual elite of the country."
Although she doesn't say that any divorce proceedings were started as a result of these fights, some friendships did suffer damage, possibly irreparable. When I think about how badly Americans are now divided along the political fault lines, and what issues are at stake in this division, I feel grateful that we still seem to have a good measure of civility left, that all this shouting and name calling is only temporary, and is already starting to subside. Perhaps the blessing lies in our short attention spans, or that we learned not to take politics and (especially) politicians seriously - whatever it is, given the number of guns in private hands, I'm really, really glad we know when to pull back and talk about the weather. :-)
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Tolerancjonizm
A couple of weeks ago I heard a recorded lecture by a Polish feminist about the "new lines of tolerance and intolerance in Europe". She used the word "tolerancjonizm" ("tolerantionism" in English?), which I haven't heard before. She spoke of it with disdain - or at least that's how I understood her tone - as a term coined by the right wing in Poland in order to give a name to what it sees a the ideology of "tolerance for its own sake" emanating from the Western Europe.
It struck me as a very adequate term, probably better than its somewhat broader (and poorly translatable into Polish) alternative of "political correctness". Indeed, we seem to be living in the age of the "dictatorship of tolerance", which replaced the "dictatorship of proletariat" as the modus operandi of the Left. Like with the former, here too some are "more equal than others", more worthy of tolerance. Thus, having a statue of Virgin Mary on display, covered in elephant dung, should be tolerated as art, while there is no tolerance for a few cartoons ridiculing the moslem prophet Muhammad. (On the other hand, it's OK to show tolerance toward those, who demand death penalty for the cartoonists who "offend islam".) Displays of hatred towards the United States on American college campuses are to be tolerated. Not so much the patriotic (read "jingoistic") or conservative views on those same campuses. Signs of islamic oppression of women, such as hijab and forced marriages are perfectly tolerable facets of someone's culture (saying otherwise amounts to nothing more than "cultural imperialism"). On the other hand, telling a female colleague at work that she looks "sexy" is grounds for firing of the hapless male who would say such a vile thing. (Zero tolerance for sexual harassment!)
Of course, a lot of these double standards are driven by fear of the "moslem street", which has been known to fly into murderous rage at the slightest provocation. But most of it is driven by the nihilistic desire to dilute and undermine Western civilization, with no regard to what it will be replaced with. It is a consequence of the narcissism that permeates our culture: "apres moi, le deluge!" seems to be the attitude ot the XXth Century's Western Man. (Not XXIst century's - I hope the new generation is smarter and better than we, the self-absorbed baby-boomers. If not, we're in trouble.)
It struck me as a very adequate term, probably better than its somewhat broader (and poorly translatable into Polish) alternative of "political correctness". Indeed, we seem to be living in the age of the "dictatorship of tolerance", which replaced the "dictatorship of proletariat" as the modus operandi of the Left. Like with the former, here too some are "more equal than others", more worthy of tolerance. Thus, having a statue of Virgin Mary on display, covered in elephant dung, should be tolerated as art, while there is no tolerance for a few cartoons ridiculing the moslem prophet Muhammad. (On the other hand, it's OK to show tolerance toward those, who demand death penalty for the cartoonists who "offend islam".) Displays of hatred towards the United States on American college campuses are to be tolerated. Not so much the patriotic (read "jingoistic") or conservative views on those same campuses. Signs of islamic oppression of women, such as hijab and forced marriages are perfectly tolerable facets of someone's culture (saying otherwise amounts to nothing more than "cultural imperialism"). On the other hand, telling a female colleague at work that she looks "sexy" is grounds for firing of the hapless male who would say such a vile thing. (Zero tolerance for sexual harassment!)
Of course, a lot of these double standards are driven by fear of the "moslem street", which has been known to fly into murderous rage at the slightest provocation. But most of it is driven by the nihilistic desire to dilute and undermine Western civilization, with no regard to what it will be replaced with. It is a consequence of the narcissism that permeates our culture: "apres moi, le deluge!" seems to be the attitude ot the XXth Century's Western Man. (Not XXIst century's - I hope the new generation is smarter and better than we, the self-absorbed baby-boomers. If not, we're in trouble.)
Thursday, December 27, 2007
What's really scary about global warming?
I feel very conflicted about the "global warming" meme being shoved down our collective throats. On the one hand, I'm convinced that this is a gigantic hoax driven in part by well-meaning people, but largely by anti-Western, anti-capitalist ideologies I'm extremely wary of. On the other hand, won't the good that may come out of that, like alternative energy and cleaner environment, outweigh the bad? Well, that's exactly what I'm afraid of - that it will not. For one thing, the benefits are yet to be realized, but there are already plenty of very troubling signs that evoke terrible associations for me. After all, wasn't the premise of communism a benevolent one? To distribute wealth more equally, to stop exploitation of one person by another, to introduce rational planning into the volatile nature of capitalist economy... And look what we ended up with.
I'm not saying that the global warming hysteria will lead to a revolution, a world socialist government, or gulags. (I'm also not saying that it won't.) However, the attempts to silence and vilify the skeptics are extremely troubling. As is the politicization of science, the involvement of government bureaucracies, the enormous amounts of money that will be extracted from societies for all kinds of hare-brained ideas that, in the best of circumstances, will have very little effect, and in the worst, will cause irreparable damage.
Yes, I always hated the SUVs, considering them an idiotic fad that refused to go away. I don't think of myself as a tree-hugger (although I was one in my teenage years and early adulthood), but at the same time I don't like cars very much, and the notion that a single person could be burning so much gas moving his/her ass in a humongous car from one place to another was making me genuinely angry. Especially after 9/11, when it became painfully clear what our gas money had been paying for...
I would really welcome a much better public transit system in the US, and much smaller cars. I think I wrote about this before, but George W. Bush wasted a tremendous opportunity by not rallying the country around the idea of energy conservation and independence in response to the 9/11 carnage. Previous attempts by Presidents Ford and Carter to lower our dependence on foreign oil failed, because the OPEC countries responded by pumping more oil and lowering its price, thus making alternative energy sources badly uneconomical. Tying this to national security in the wake of the terrorist attack would have insulated this project - at least to some extent - from such economic pressures. The Americans would have swallowed $2 or $3 per gallon, if they knew that the revenue would go toward building energy independence. Now our only hope is that the price will stay high long enough for alternative energy to take hold, and that OPEC will not be able to increase production to kill it. (At the same time, it would be even worse if the price of oil got much higher, forcing the world's economy into a nosedive... It is a tough balancing act and we will need all the luck we can get.)
I cringe imagining government bureaucrats all over the world rubbing their hands together in anticipation of the windfall the global warming scare will produce. They will be relevant again! The public is virtually begging for more onerous regulations, bigger taxes, more intrusions into their personal choices - let's give it to them! Governments are like those gigantic steam engines of the past: hard to get them going, but once they are in motion you have to keep feeding them, and it's awfully hard to make them stop or turn around. Remember these three idiotic questions the airline agents were required to ask years and years after the "Lockerbie bombing"? "Who packed your bags?", "Have these bags been under your complete control since the time you packed them?", "Has anyone given you anything to bring on board?". It mast have been pretty evident to anybody with half a brain how ridiculously ineffective was this method of thwarting terrorism (was even a single bombing prevented because of this measure??) and yet it took 15 (or more?) years until finally the US government decided to let go of it. (Imagine my shock when I heard those questions last November, before boarding a plane at Schiphol in Amsterdam... They are still doing it. How sad and annoying.)
Another example: the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which is doing grave damage to American competitiveness, yet nobody has the guts to pull the plug on it. My point is that once you open the door for the government to regulate, you will have to live with the consequences for many, many years, even if it turns out that these regulations were ill-advised to begin with. This scares me much more than a change of a couple of degrees in average temperatures.
I'm not saying that the global warming hysteria will lead to a revolution, a world socialist government, or gulags. (I'm also not saying that it won't.) However, the attempts to silence and vilify the skeptics are extremely troubling. As is the politicization of science, the involvement of government bureaucracies, the enormous amounts of money that will be extracted from societies for all kinds of hare-brained ideas that, in the best of circumstances, will have very little effect, and in the worst, will cause irreparable damage.
Yes, I always hated the SUVs, considering them an idiotic fad that refused to go away. I don't think of myself as a tree-hugger (although I was one in my teenage years and early adulthood), but at the same time I don't like cars very much, and the notion that a single person could be burning so much gas moving his/her ass in a humongous car from one place to another was making me genuinely angry. Especially after 9/11, when it became painfully clear what our gas money had been paying for...
I would really welcome a much better public transit system in the US, and much smaller cars. I think I wrote about this before, but George W. Bush wasted a tremendous opportunity by not rallying the country around the idea of energy conservation and independence in response to the 9/11 carnage. Previous attempts by Presidents Ford and Carter to lower our dependence on foreign oil failed, because the OPEC countries responded by pumping more oil and lowering its price, thus making alternative energy sources badly uneconomical. Tying this to national security in the wake of the terrorist attack would have insulated this project - at least to some extent - from such economic pressures. The Americans would have swallowed $2 or $3 per gallon, if they knew that the revenue would go toward building energy independence. Now our only hope is that the price will stay high long enough for alternative energy to take hold, and that OPEC will not be able to increase production to kill it. (At the same time, it would be even worse if the price of oil got much higher, forcing the world's economy into a nosedive... It is a tough balancing act and we will need all the luck we can get.)
I cringe imagining government bureaucrats all over the world rubbing their hands together in anticipation of the windfall the global warming scare will produce. They will be relevant again! The public is virtually begging for more onerous regulations, bigger taxes, more intrusions into their personal choices - let's give it to them! Governments are like those gigantic steam engines of the past: hard to get them going, but once they are in motion you have to keep feeding them, and it's awfully hard to make them stop or turn around. Remember these three idiotic questions the airline agents were required to ask years and years after the "Lockerbie bombing"? "Who packed your bags?", "Have these bags been under your complete control since the time you packed them?", "Has anyone given you anything to bring on board?". It mast have been pretty evident to anybody with half a brain how ridiculously ineffective was this method of thwarting terrorism (was even a single bombing prevented because of this measure??) and yet it took 15 (or more?) years until finally the US government decided to let go of it. (Imagine my shock when I heard those questions last November, before boarding a plane at Schiphol in Amsterdam... They are still doing it. How sad and annoying.)
Another example: the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which is doing grave damage to American competitiveness, yet nobody has the guts to pull the plug on it. My point is that once you open the door for the government to regulate, you will have to live with the consequences for many, many years, even if it turns out that these regulations were ill-advised to begin with. This scares me much more than a change of a couple of degrees in average temperatures.