When I was a young private in the infantry the officers in my battalion suddenly caught the bug to glue clear plastic stickers in the rear windows of their cars that would tell the rest of us the name of the educational institution from which they had obtained their diploma. So, you would see all these CJ-7s and 4Runners in the parking lot emblazoned with USMA, Citadel, University of Texas or whatever on the back.
We the enlisted knew at one level that it was just school pride that was driving this phenomenon, but it was a bit aggravating nonetheless. After all, it was not your platoon leader's history degree from North Dakota State that made the man worth following, it was his leadership ability (if any). It was if they were rubbing it in our faces.
At some point, my squad leader got fed up with those I Love Me Stickers and decided to make a (uh) statement in response. Now, this guy (whose name was Jones) was odd. He was both one of the smartest men I've ever known AND one of the least capable men I've ever known of going with the flow. He grew up in Pennsylvania near Amish Country and used to tell us stories about arguing with them about the foundations of their worldview. His primary point: why pick 1780 as the year when history should have stopped? "It's random!" Jones would rail. Jones was a great non-commissioned officer, but you just knew he was never going past a certain level. He got thrown out of ANCOC for having dirt on his face two days in a row--in the same exact place! Stubborn. Jones was stubborn.
Of all of his idiosyncrasies (and they were Legion), Jones' biggest grind-able axe was his antipathy to Expertise. Jones just hated the concept of the appointed, credentialed and labeled man called the Expert. Jones would tell us that once you accepted another man as an Expert in Thing X you surrendered your right and responsibility to do Thing X for yourself, and once you started down surrender street you were never going to stop.
Jones' blanket rejection of Expertise extended to education. He believed that a man had the duty to educate himself that was not delegable to any other man, school or Expert. Per Jones, as long as there were libraries, a man could find the knowledge he needed. Jones handed me a copy of The Fountainhead in 1986 and gave me two weeks to read it. Then we talked about it--a lot. That was heavy stuff for a 20 year old kid who had never gotten past the 10th Grade, but he opened up my mind.
So, here was Jones' revolt against the officers' college stickers. He had a bunch of stickers made up that said "GED" on them. We all put them in the back of our beater Dusters and rusted out F-150s. When the officers asked us why we would want people to know that we never graduated from a "real" high school we just smiled, because it proved Jones' point about men who relied on the Expertise of others for their education and reputation.
I have not spoken to Jones for twenty years and have no idea where he is now, but he had a huge effect on the way I see The World and my place in it. I don't wait around for some Expert to tell me how to do things. While I am upright I can figure things out for myself and share what I have learned. I'm a graduate of the Old School Home School who spends no time whatsoever on Surrender Street.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Friday, September 14, 2012
The @StifflersMom Problem
UNC's crisis de jure is part of a larger problem. There does not appear to be a culture of accountability at the university. Some, by no means all (and probably not that many), of the people in power are corrupt. Not grossly corrupt, but corrupt enough to fake grades and allow a guy to fly his girlfriend around to her sons' basketball games on the state's dime. It's soft corruption that is being justified in kind of an ends/means way. Keeping Peppers on the field/court was more important than getting him a real education--and he got rich anyway, so no harm no foul. Kubek was raising big bucks for the school, so why not let him stay loose on the road. It's not that big a deal.
True, it's not that big a deal--if that is where it would stop. But corruption never stops. One corrupt cell kills the cell next to it, and so on until the body dies. The @StifflersMom Problem is not that there a few rule-benders at UNC, but that the leadership is tolerating it. That toleration is a signal to the majority of dedicated people at Carolina who are trying to play it straight that their efforts to do so are in vain. When cheating is tolerated, cheating wins and non-cheating looks pretty stupid. So, it's not so much the Peppers and the @StifflersMoms that are the problem but the leadership that tolerates it. That tolerance encourages vice and discourages virtue.
UNC will survive this bump in the road, but only if this culture of toleration of soft corruption is ended. It will take leadership to do that. The current leadership has proven incapable or unwilling to do so.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
#Rejectorama
The way I see it #F3's power is built as much on what it doesn't embrace as what it does. There is a whole bunch of conventional wisdom that #F3 simply does not accept.
In no particular order:
1) Well, this is the way we've always done it. Who cares? If it doesn't work, don't do it that way anymore. If it does work, the fact that it's never been done that way does not matter.
2) We can't do this for ourselves. Yes, yes we can.
3) Make sure everybody can keep up. No, make sure the guys falling behind know where you are going, and encourage them to go faster.
4) It's not a competition. Yes it is. Everything is a competition. Sometimes, it's only against yourself. You get faster and stronger by hitting it with guys who are faster and stronger. Not the other way around.
In no particular order:
1) Well, this is the way we've always done it. Who cares? If it doesn't work, don't do it that way anymore. If it does work, the fact that it's never been done that way does not matter.
2) We can't do this for ourselves. Yes, yes we can.
3) Make sure everybody can keep up. No, make sure the guys falling behind know where you are going, and encourage them to go faster.
4) It's not a competition. Yes it is. Everything is a competition. Sometimes, it's only against yourself. You get faster and stronger by hitting it with guys who are faster and stronger. Not the other way around.
Monday, August 20, 2012
He Hate Me
My brother Carl has so many kids that he's pretty much stopped naming them. I don't have any shorties of my own and am not much interested in them, so they would all be more or less the same to me whether or not Carl had named them.
But he's got this one little girl that does something that sticks out in my mind. Just like her brothers and sisters she's generally running around demanding stuff she wants from her parents or any other adult who might be in her midst. But where the others will whine, pout, or nag at a demand denied, this one does something unique and she's done it since she was 3 years old. She just turns to anyone else standing there and screams "HE HATE ME". She channels so much venom when she does it that it can freak you out if you're not ready for it.
I guess the logic of her 3 year old mind is this: either you're giving me what I want (right now, wait is the same as no) or you must hate me. There can't be any other reason. The pure shock of this tactic does actually work for her a few times with strangers, but after a while you get used to it and just ignore her or say "you're dang right I do. Now move out." If you didn't do that, she'd never grow out of it.
HE HATE ME is pretty much where we are with the Democrats right now. It turned into a party of demanding stuff sometime during Lyndon Johnson's presidency and it hasn't stopped since. But like all seemingly free lunches, the tab for all this stuff we've been giving to Democrats for fifty years was always coming due and now it's landed on the table with a thud. We haven't been making enough cash to pay for all this stuff for a long time, and the folks lending us money to make up the difference are getting to the end of the line. It's not really a policy choice to say we need to spend less, because there is no choice. We just have to spend less. We aren't making it and we can't borrow it. So, we're just going to have to say "no" right now.
The Democrats have not reacted real well to this reality. Just like Carl's little girl when you tell her no, they pretty just yell "HE HATE ME". If you won't fund this program or that, it can't be because we're broke. It must be that you're a racist, homophobe, sexist hate-monger. And I'm afraid we won't help our Democrats grow up by trying to reason with them. No matter how loud they scream "HE HATE ME" at us, we're just going to have to keep saying no. That's what grown-ups do.
But he's got this one little girl that does something that sticks out in my mind. Just like her brothers and sisters she's generally running around demanding stuff she wants from her parents or any other adult who might be in her midst. But where the others will whine, pout, or nag at a demand denied, this one does something unique and she's done it since she was 3 years old. She just turns to anyone else standing there and screams "HE HATE ME". She channels so much venom when she does it that it can freak you out if you're not ready for it.
I guess the logic of her 3 year old mind is this: either you're giving me what I want (right now, wait is the same as no) or you must hate me. There can't be any other reason. The pure shock of this tactic does actually work for her a few times with strangers, but after a while you get used to it and just ignore her or say "you're dang right I do. Now move out." If you didn't do that, she'd never grow out of it.
HE HATE ME is pretty much where we are with the Democrats right now. It turned into a party of demanding stuff sometime during Lyndon Johnson's presidency and it hasn't stopped since. But like all seemingly free lunches, the tab for all this stuff we've been giving to Democrats for fifty years was always coming due and now it's landed on the table with a thud. We haven't been making enough cash to pay for all this stuff for a long time, and the folks lending us money to make up the difference are getting to the end of the line. It's not really a policy choice to say we need to spend less, because there is no choice. We just have to spend less. We aren't making it and we can't borrow it. So, we're just going to have to say "no" right now.
The Democrats have not reacted real well to this reality. Just like Carl's little girl when you tell her no, they pretty just yell "HE HATE ME". If you won't fund this program or that, it can't be because we're broke. It must be that you're a racist, homophobe, sexist hate-monger. And I'm afraid we won't help our Democrats grow up by trying to reason with them. No matter how loud they scream "HE HATE ME" at us, we're just going to have to keep saying no. That's what grown-ups do.
He Is PhiloMath
Some guy e-mailed me his "profile" of me based on my tweets and posts. I think he meant it as a joke, but it's pretty much right on with a couple of near misses:
I think PhiloMath is a sort of poorly educated country-savant with a bit of an axe to grind. However, I don't think he is particularly dangerous unless cornered or challenged in some unforeseeable way--at which point I think he is probably capable of some unpredictable and explosive violence.From some of his tweets I gather that he is a wounded or recovering veteran who has been culturally marginalized. I think his ends (while vague--even to him) are positive and generally patriotic, but I suspect that his means are not impacted by the same legal and societal restraints that we would recognize and obey. Instead, he is subject to an idiosyncratic code that will allow him to neither forgive nor forget. And yet, he can be gentle (if approached from the front and in broad daylight).He probably has very little impulse control and is generally armed in a manner that would make even a routine traffic stop a potential blood-soaked adventure. If he is college educated (which I doubt) I am guessing ECU, VCU or Wake Forest.
He could be anywhere from 35 to 55 years old. He has at some time been a central figure in a militia, para-military group or a reactionary book-club that does not vary far from the Tom Clancy catalogue. He might think of himself as a Christian, but I would be surprised if he celebrated Christmas other than to note its passing by lighting a single black taper in the kitchenette of his well-worn trailer.He believes that hard looks and straight talk get results. His father, while not a perfect man, was known throughout the county as being direct in speech and fair in dealing. PhiloMath has attempted to live up to his dead father's legacy, but finds himself increasingly frustrated in a world that no longer celebrates honor nor honors celebration.He is an anachronism.His vigil is lonely.His is his own worst enemy.He is PhiloMath.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
The Big Flush--Media Failure Mode
In 2012 Rick Reilly finally woke up to the fact that Notre Dame is not really a college football powerhouse. Great. The rest of us knew that about fifteen years ago. In any other profession 15 years late would be an embarrassment. Not in journalism. There, the late discovery of the obvious truth is actually the standard.
Reporters are supposed to tell us two things: a) something we didn't already know, or b) a new way to look at something we do already know. Here, Reilly is telling us what we already know, for the exact same reasons we already knew it, 15 years after we first learned it. He also admits (implicitly) that his judgment was clouded for personal reasons (he's "Irish"--hey, we knew that too). Last month, Reilly also admitted to personal bias affecting a Paterno hagiography he wrote twenty years ago. Of course, he had to include in that admission that he didn't really know what a hagiography was cuz that's a big word and he's one of the guys or whatever. No, we're the guys. You, Reilly, are supposed to know what words mean and stuff.
Reporters are not ALL supposed to be low-rent Andy Rooneys running around saying "huh, what's this twitter contraption all about" 8 years after we've STOPPED using it. They are supposed to be on the cutting edge because they are supposed to be curious. They are supposed to sniff things out. They are supposed to hold our institutions accountable, not be blinded by personal loyalty or curmudgeonly incompetence to their flaws. It would be like a lawyer screwing up a case because he didn't know the law had changed and saying, "huh, they shouldn't have changed that law. When I was a kid, that wasn't the law. And what's this internet machine all about anyway?"
I heard Julius Peppers on the radio about 8 years ago. He could not speak English any better than a 5 year old kid. I'm not mocking him. It's just a fact (a sad one). It was so bad that the guy interviewing him (no genius himself) couldn't help making fun of Peppers afterward. I (non-reporter and thus curious guy that I am) thought: how the hell did that guy stay eligible for four years? Seriously, I did. It's not really a Sherlockian intuitive leap to wonder how could a guy who cannot complete a sentence can possibly maintain any GPA at all at a school like Carolina. But apparently no reporter has ever had the same question pop in his head long enough to try to find out. If UNC hadn't "accidentally" (I suspect it was somebody within the school fed up with this bullshit that did it) released Peppers' transcript we might never know. Rick Reilly wouldn't have found out.
The media industry is in the midst of a great upheavel brought upon by its own failure to perform its core mission properly. The industry itself thinks it is about pay walls and other stuff that is beside the point. It's about doing the job well. Whoever does the job well will survive. Everybody else will go down the tubes, but they probably won't realize it for 15 years after the last big flush.
Reporters are supposed to tell us two things: a) something we didn't already know, or b) a new way to look at something we do already know. Here, Reilly is telling us what we already know, for the exact same reasons we already knew it, 15 years after we first learned it. He also admits (implicitly) that his judgment was clouded for personal reasons (he's "Irish"--hey, we knew that too). Last month, Reilly also admitted to personal bias affecting a Paterno hagiography he wrote twenty years ago. Of course, he had to include in that admission that he didn't really know what a hagiography was cuz that's a big word and he's one of the guys or whatever. No, we're the guys. You, Reilly, are supposed to know what words mean and stuff.
Reporters are not ALL supposed to be low-rent Andy Rooneys running around saying "huh, what's this twitter contraption all about" 8 years after we've STOPPED using it. They are supposed to be on the cutting edge because they are supposed to be curious. They are supposed to sniff things out. They are supposed to hold our institutions accountable, not be blinded by personal loyalty or curmudgeonly incompetence to their flaws. It would be like a lawyer screwing up a case because he didn't know the law had changed and saying, "huh, they shouldn't have changed that law. When I was a kid, that wasn't the law. And what's this internet machine all about anyway?"
I heard Julius Peppers on the radio about 8 years ago. He could not speak English any better than a 5 year old kid. I'm not mocking him. It's just a fact (a sad one). It was so bad that the guy interviewing him (no genius himself) couldn't help making fun of Peppers afterward. I (non-reporter and thus curious guy that I am) thought: how the hell did that guy stay eligible for four years? Seriously, I did. It's not really a Sherlockian intuitive leap to wonder how could a guy who cannot complete a sentence can possibly maintain any GPA at all at a school like Carolina. But apparently no reporter has ever had the same question pop in his head long enough to try to find out. If UNC hadn't "accidentally" (I suspect it was somebody within the school fed up with this bullshit that did it) released Peppers' transcript we might never know. Rick Reilly wouldn't have found out.
The media industry is in the midst of a great upheavel brought upon by its own failure to perform its core mission properly. The industry itself thinks it is about pay walls and other stuff that is beside the point. It's about doing the job well. Whoever does the job well will survive. Everybody else will go down the tubes, but they probably won't realize it for 15 years after the last big flush.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
HackJacks Of Progress
Basketball 101. If you can't stop the other guy straight up, hack him. Foul him hard in a way to frustrate him, hurt him and make him think twice about coming down the lane again. And when you run out of fouls, the coach just puts in another hack. Doesn't matter who it is because hacking doesn't require skill.
Paul Ryan has a lot of ideas. Maybe some of them aren't that great, but we probably will never hear about that because the Democrats haven't set out to analyze them on their merits. They're just hacking. I guess they know they can't stop Ryan straight up because Obama has already called him the worst ever and Biden has claimed that Romney wants to put black people back in chains. Hack. Hack.
I know some smart guys who I think of as Smart Government Progressives. They believe that government can be a force of good in the lives of its citizens when in the hands of smart guys with a solid progressive agenda. The voted for Obama because they thought he was that smart guy. They are now disappointed.
I agree with the Smart Government Progressive idea as a concept but reject it as a practice. I do not believe it works because it fails to recognize and harness the natural self-interest of man. As a result, despite its best intentions, all forms of Smart Government Progressiveness are inevitably high-jacked by hacks, HackJacks who abandon progressive ideals and concentrate on maintaining power.
I won't try dissuade a committed Smart Government Progressive. I accept (maybe even admire) their quixotic search for a leader. But I will try to convince them of this: Obama, Biden, Reid and Pelosi are not those leaders. They are HackJacks. Keeping them in power simply because they claim to be progressive fellow travelers is illogical. It gets them no closer to their goal of Smart Government. If anything keeping HackJacks in power retards progress. If they truly want Smart Government as soon as possible, they should not vote for Obama/Biden.
Paul Ryan has a lot of ideas. Maybe some of them aren't that great, but we probably will never hear about that because the Democrats haven't set out to analyze them on their merits. They're just hacking. I guess they know they can't stop Ryan straight up because Obama has already called him the worst ever and Biden has claimed that Romney wants to put black people back in chains. Hack. Hack.
I know some smart guys who I think of as Smart Government Progressives. They believe that government can be a force of good in the lives of its citizens when in the hands of smart guys with a solid progressive agenda. The voted for Obama because they thought he was that smart guy. They are now disappointed.
I agree with the Smart Government Progressive idea as a concept but reject it as a practice. I do not believe it works because it fails to recognize and harness the natural self-interest of man. As a result, despite its best intentions, all forms of Smart Government Progressiveness are inevitably high-jacked by hacks, HackJacks who abandon progressive ideals and concentrate on maintaining power.
I won't try dissuade a committed Smart Government Progressive. I accept (maybe even admire) their quixotic search for a leader. But I will try to convince them of this: Obama, Biden, Reid and Pelosi are not those leaders. They are HackJacks. Keeping them in power simply because they claim to be progressive fellow travelers is illogical. It gets them no closer to their goal of Smart Government. If anything keeping HackJacks in power retards progress. If they truly want Smart Government as soon as possible, they should not vote for Obama/Biden.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
The Three Limits Of Compromise
Yes, our Constitution enshrines a federalist balance of power between branches and levels that is reflected downward through state and local governments such that at it permeates even book club meetings. Governing this way, sharing power, requires compromise. Americans are actually pretty darn good at it. But compromise has its limits. Some things--not many--cannot be compromised. In fact, there are only three. Here they are:
1. The Fiscal Death Spiral. Our governments (at all levels) have spent too much money and made too many promises. The debt, like any ponzi scheme, is killing us. The only question is how long it will take and who will yield the death axe. Either you believe this to be true or you don't. It's binary. There is no point in discussing whether it is fair to cut back on Pell Grants, etc. There is nothing to compromise about.
2. The Creation Of Life. Either God creates life, or He does not. If He does, then only He can end it. It sounds like compromise to allow it to be done only in the case of rape or incest, but it's not. In conceding that there are circumstances under which a life can be ended by man, one is denying that only God may do so. There is in fact nothing to compromise about. Abortion is murder, or it isn't.
3. The Right To Free Speech. Either one believes that the right of free speech is something the government can only recognize but never restrict, or one does not. It sounds like a compromise to except yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, but that is a category error. It's not speech that is illegal in that example, but the causing of riot. It would be equally as illegal to introduce the smell of burning wood into the theatre to induce a stampede. Either one stands for the premise that all speech is protected (particularly that which one finds loathsome), or one does not.
These are the only three. Everything else is up for discussion.
1. The Fiscal Death Spiral. Our governments (at all levels) have spent too much money and made too many promises. The debt, like any ponzi scheme, is killing us. The only question is how long it will take and who will yield the death axe. Either you believe this to be true or you don't. It's binary. There is no point in discussing whether it is fair to cut back on Pell Grants, etc. There is nothing to compromise about.
2. The Creation Of Life. Either God creates life, or He does not. If He does, then only He can end it. It sounds like compromise to allow it to be done only in the case of rape or incest, but it's not. In conceding that there are circumstances under which a life can be ended by man, one is denying that only God may do so. There is in fact nothing to compromise about. Abortion is murder, or it isn't.
3. The Right To Free Speech. Either one believes that the right of free speech is something the government can only recognize but never restrict, or one does not. It sounds like a compromise to except yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, but that is a category error. It's not speech that is illegal in that example, but the causing of riot. It would be equally as illegal to introduce the smell of burning wood into the theatre to induce a stampede. Either one stands for the premise that all speech is protected (particularly that which one finds loathsome), or one does not.
These are the only three. Everything else is up for discussion.
Monday, August 6, 2012
What Actors Know
Look, Clint would not be my avatar if I didn't love the guy's movies. But what do I really know about the guy? I threw up in mouth a little bit during the Super Bowl when he came on with that halftime in America crap. Seemed pretty obvious to me that it was pro-Obama. And why? Everything about Obama seems dead dick opposite from Clint, or maybe the just the characters he portrays. What do I really know about the guy? Now he says he's voting for Romney. OK, good. Maybe he changed his mind. Or maybe he knows what he knows, like where the gaffer stands (or what the gaffer is) and that's about it. Why do we even take actors seriously?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)