I.T. Erudio

Category: philosophy

  • experience, time in service, and understanding

    Another of my quixotic projects is making a video production of reading Ralph Waldo Emerson’s essays – which I’m sure would appeal to maybe a handful of folks worldwide.

    BUT considering my track record in “estimating market potential” something that I think has zero potential would probably perform better than the ideas that I think have a HUGE potential.

    Anyway – good ol’ Mr Emerson pointed out that –

    “The man who knows how will always have a job. The man who knows why will always be his boss.”

    -Ralph Waldo Emerson

    Of course a “good boss” will make sure that the folks doing the “how” have an understanding of the “why” – but that isn’t the point.

    On my mind this morning is that the difference between knowing “how” to do something, actually doing something, AND understanding “why” something is done.

    story time

    In “modern America” my guess is that the “average American” has no idea what actually happens when they flip on a light switch.

    Of course everyone understands that you flip a switch, turn a knob, push a button – and “electricity” causes the light to come on. I’m NOT saying that the “average” American is uneducated or unintelligent – I’m just saying that the average American (probably) has no idea “why” the light comes on.

    Ok, this isn’t meant to be an insult or a negative comment about “education in America” – just pointing out that the “modern electrical grid” involves a lot of parts. Truly understanding the “why” of electricity takes some effort.

    experience vs “time in service”

    Again, in “modern America” being an “electrician” requires specific training – e.g. here in Ohio, Google tells me that schools offer “electrician training” programs ranging from 9 months to 2 years.

    After graduation our aspiring electrician probably has a good understanding of “how” to “work with the electrical grid” – and can perform work “up to code.”

    BUT why is the “code” the “standard” – i.e. the “National Electrical Code ®” wasn’t handed down from “on high” but is (as its website tell me) the “benchmark for safe electrical design, installation, and inspection to protect people and property from electrical hazards”

    While our young electrician understands the “how” of his job, they probably don’t understand the “why” of EVERYTHING in the codes.

    Again, I’m not trying to insult electricians – just pointing out that somethings won’t become “obvious” until you have some experience doing the job.

    SO what is “obvious” to that wise old electrician that has been doing the job for 20 years PROBABLY isn’t going to be (as) “obvious” to the electrician with 1 year of experience.

    Of course it is POSSIBLE (and probable) that SOME long time professionals will never progress in the understanding of their profession past the bare minimum. (A small percentage will be (probably) be incompetent but true incompetence isn’t this issue here.)

    Yes, this falls into the “insult” category – e.g. it is possible to be in a position for 5 years, and not learn anything. SO that would be “5 years “time in service” but functionally “1 year of experience 5 times” NOT “5 years of experience.”

    Just showing up for work everyday doesn’t mean you are going to automatically improve.

    teaching and understanding

    There are a couple verses in the “Old Testament” that come to mind (emphasis obviously mine):

    9 Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons, and thy sons’ sons; 10 specially the day that thou stoodest before the Lord thy God in Horeb, when the Lord said unto me, Gather me the people together, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children.

    Deuteronomy 4:9-10 (AKJV)

    Notice that the command for parents to teach their children is meant to benefit BOTH the parents AND the children. The “secular” thought is that “to teach is to learn twice.”

    Of course there are always “effective teachers” and “not as effective teachers.” Albert Einstein liked to point out that:

    “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”

    Albert Einstein

    SO to teach requires understanding and the act of teaching can/should increase understanding – both for the student AND the teacher.

    I’ve been “teaching” in a formal “classroom” sense for almost 10 years. Looking back at those early classes – I definitely learned more than (some) of my students.

    I had been working “in the field” for 15 years, had numerous industry certifications, and a Masters degree – so MY learning was mostly about the “why” – but there were still areas within the field that I didn’t REALLY understand.

    Ok, the students didn’t know enough to notice that I didn’t know enough – but you get the idea.

    This is the old “no one knows everything” sort of idea – at the time I simply didn’t know that I didn’t know 😉

    ANYWAY – just kinda random thoughts – one more quote that I would have attributed to Mark Twain (he said something similar – but probably not this exact quote) – Harry Truman liked the quote, so did John Wooden – and Earl Weaver used it as the title of his autobiography:

    It’s What You Learn After You Know It All That Counts

  • leadership is communication, “winning”

    I wrote a long post that either needs editing or deletion – but at least it served as “pre writing” for this post.

    status quo

    If you want to be precise the “status quo” is simply the “current situation.” Which technically means that whatever is happening at the moment is the “status quo.” Usually the term implies the “normal” and ESTABLISHED state of affairs.

    “Organizational behavior 101” is that “organizations” of any size tend to work to maintain the “status quo.” This “active desire to maintain the status quo” might be called “culture” or “tradition.”

    Whatever we call it – changing the “status quo” will take conscious effort. First it has to be recognized, and then the process of change can begin.

    In a larger organization there will be written/documented procedures that formally maintain “situation normal.” In a smaller organization there are (probably) fewer “rules” but a “status quo” has been established. Then in a “startup” organization the “status quo” has to be created.

    Of course a “startup” is rarely actually starting from scratch – the folks starting the company are bringing all of their previous experience (positive and negative). e.g. If you have heard the saying “you’ll find it the same wherever you go” – that is sorta the same idea …

    change

    Also true is that “change” happens – whether we want it or not. If an organization fails to adapt to change – then EVENTUALLY it will cease to exist.

    Which means that the “status quo” of “long term successful” organizations incorporates responding to change.

    The term “learning organization” was popular a few years back. The phrase might be a meaningless management buzzword in 2021. Back in the early 1990’s the “learning organization” was probably focused on implementing relatively new technology (i.e. that “interweb” thing the kids are using). In 2021 the “learning organization” should be focused on being an “effective communication” organization …

    communication

    If you are in a “leadership” position then you are always “communicating.” The only question is “how” and “what” you are communicating.

    Communication styles can differ greatly based on individual leader preferences. HOWEVER – one of the biggest mistakes a leader can make is to “assume” that “employees” understand “leadership’s” reasoning/expectations.

    This is particularly important when a leader is trying to change company culture. In a “change” situation it is probably impossible for a leader to overcommunicate – i.e. “change” will still happen if leaders “under communicate” BUT the change will almost certainly NOT be the desired change.

    The concept of “leader intent” comes to mind – i.e. leaders should communicate the “why” as well as the “what” behind their directives. If the desire if to cut waste and be cost effective – then expressing the desire to find ways to cut waste and encourage cost effectiveness will (probably) more accurately meet “leadership’s intent” than ordering people to count sheets of paper and track paper clip usage …

    Sports ball

    The same rules apply to sports teams. Of course it is much more common for “sports philosophy” to be used in the “business” world than the other way around.

    Teams/leagues are simply organizations that have agreed to compete based on a specific set of rules/standards. The big difference being that telling “who won” and “who lost” is much easier with a scoreboard.

    Obviously with “professional sports” the only metric that matters is “winning contests.” Professional coaches and athletes are paid to win. There are no “moral victories” in pro sports.

    Of course that doesn’t mean that “losing professional sports franchise” is actually “losing money”/unprofitable OR that “championship sports franchise” is actually “making money”/profitable. But that is a much different subject.

    Winning

    “Winning” always implies a competition of some kind. In “sports ball” the rules of competition are clearly defined. e.g. You can take a look at the NFL rulebook or download the MLB rules

    But is “winning the only thing?” Or is “just win baby” a functioning philosophy? How about “if you ain’t first, you’re last?”

    If you ain’t first, you’re last

    Reese Bobby

    Well, with all due respect to Vince Lombardi and Al Davis – both of their quotes have been taken a little out of context – as is true for a lot of “motivational quotes.”

    The quote from Talladega Nights humorously illustrates the “out of context” nature of most “win at all costs” quotes.

    Vince Lombardi was also quoted as saying that he wanted his players to place “professional football” third on their “life priority” lists – with God and family being in the first two spots.

    I never heard Al Davis try to explain his “just win baby” quote – beyond being a condemnation of other teams “player conduct” policies. In context he was asking for the same sort of commitment as Mr Lombardi. Mr Davis described that commitment as a “commitment to excellence” – which has also become a management buzzword in its own right (feel free to google the term).

    Meanwhile a lot of well-meaning coaches/managers have misinterpreted the “search for high performance” as a requirement for monastic dedication.

    As always the unexamined life is not worth living – but my point today is that in “non professional sports”/the real world there is ample room for “moral victories.”

    From a practical standpoint – being focused on the end product at the expense of the process that generates that product is counterproductive.

    Yeah, that is not very quotable – the idea is simply that if you take care of the small things along the way, the end result will take care of itself.

    From a sports ball perspective – that is why Vince Lombardi started each season showing the team a football and saying “Gentlemen, this is a football.” Mr Lombardi also pointed out that “Football is a game of blocking and tackling, block and tackle better than the other team and you will win.” First master the fundamentals, and then winning will follow.

    There is a famous story of John Wooden (UCLA’s 10x NCAA basketball championship coach) starting each season by teaching players how to put on their socks. Mr Wooden would explain that if a player put their socks on wrong, then the sock would “bunch-up” and the player would get a blister. If the player got a blister they couldn’t practice/play. So spending time at the beginning of each season to teach new players (and remind returning players) how to put on their socks was worthwhile.

    A stitch in time — something, something …

    Continuous improvement

    Saying that the focus should be on “continuous improvement” implies that the “learning organization” infrastructure is in place.

    If you are coaching “non professional sports” then the primary focus should be on “learning to prepare” much more than “winning.” The entire point of “non professional sports” should be as part of the “educational” process NOT as a developmental program for the next higher level of competition.

    I’m not saying that a “pro coach” can’t have a positive impact on player’s lives/character – I’m just pointing out that the primary focus of “pro sports” is NOT “character development.”

    “Big time” college football and basketball are both money making machines – but obviously tend to be “coach centered.” The most successful coaches tend to be very good at recruiting talented players to come to their school.

    Which means that there also tends to be a huge difference in “player talent level” between the “Big time” college athletic programs and everyone else.

    Meanwhile in “professional sports” ALL of the players are “professionals” – as obvious as that sounds, the difference in “physical ability” between the “elite” players and the “average” players is minimal.

    SO what distinguishes the “elite” pro players from the “average” players? Preparation.

    Of course “avoiding injuries” becomes a part of the story for any longtime successful player – and “offseason preparation” becomes part of the “avoiding injuries” story.

    But time and fate will always play their part 😉

    oh yeah, one more thing

    All of which means a high school wrestler could go winless and have a “successful” season – assuming that they improved over the course of the season.

    A high school football team could be “successful” but lose more games than they win – that 4 win 6 loss team might be setting the stage for future success.

    Successful companies and “sports ball programs” will pass along a culture of continuous improvement and positive change management – the profits in stakeholder pockets or wins on the field of competition will follow a focus on fundamentals and individual development.

    thank you very much and I hope we passed to audition

  • “great resignation”, part-time employees, engagement

    I think I have commented on my love of “buzzwords” enough – that we can just jump into the “great resignation”/reshuffle/reprioritization/recognition/whatever …

    SO a significant number of people are choosing NOT to go back to jobs they obviously found “unsatisfying.” Trying to come up with a single reason “why” is pointless – because there (probably) is no SINGLE reason.

    Sure, if you sell management seminars to “upper management” then packaging some buzzword tripe that reinforces what upper management has already been doing will get you some paychecks. Then the reality is that it is buzzword trip seminars targeted at “upper management” that created the environment for the “great whatever” to transpire.

    To be honest the “gig economy” has been coming for awhile. If you look at the history of humanity the aberration is the “hourly wage”/weekly schedule NOT the “gig economy.”

    For MOST of human existence the major form of “employment” was subsistence farming. The industrial revolution moved folks off of farms into factories – and also created “management” as a job category.

    Henry Ford and the assembly line is always a great example of how UNPOPULAR “factory work” tends to be with “sentient beings.”

    Higher wages cut down on turnover and the “$5 day” may have kickstarted the “middle class” – at the cost of “job satisfaction” and “purpose.”

    part-time good/part-time bad

    Of course if you are trying to build a company on “gig workers” or think that it is possible to grow/build a culture with only “part-time” employees – you are chasing an illusion.

    There was a study done way back when – it was probably the 1980’s – I remember reading the book in the 1990’s that summarized the “secret management miracle technique” that they “discovered.”

    I’m sure some actual research would find the study – but since I ain’t doin’ any real research today – the short form: “major university” did a study of “global companies” and “discovered” that the employees that were emotionally involved in their work were MUCH more productive than the employees that were NOT emotionally involved in their work.

    yup, hopefully that is blindingly obvious. The (wrong) takeaway is that “pay” isn’t a major motivation to increase performance. Salary/pay/total compensation is like oxygen – if you have plenty then getting “more” is not a high priority, but if you don’t have enough, it is EXTREMELY important.

    The same with “job security” – you either have it or you don’t – but threatening employees job security will just motivate employees to find a better company to work with.

    The beatings will continue until moral improves

    Remember the key to “employee productivity” is “emotional engagement.” SO you could have highly engaged part-time employees just like you can have “disengaged” full-time employees.

    Communication

    How do you build “engagement?” Well, you gotta communicate in some form.

    The WORST thing “management” can do is “no communication” – this is the old “mushroom treatment”, “keep ’em in the dark and feed them excrement.” Of course if YOU hate your job and want to make sure that everyone reporting to you hates THEIR job – then the “mushroom treatment” is the tool for the job.

    If you fancy yourself a “leader” and are focused on things like “growth” and “long term success” – then regular communication is required.

    20/70/10

    One of Jack Welch’s tactics when he was running G.E. meshes neatly with the “employee engagement” theory.

    No, I don’t think Mr Welch was heavily influenced by the study in question. Mr Welch was influenced by years of ACTUAL employee performance data.

    The percentages the “engagement theory” folks came up with don’t really matter – maybe it was the top 10% of employees were much more engaged than the other 90% AND that top 10% was also more productive than the entire other 90%.

    If memory serves the bottom 90% are also two distinct groups – maybe it was 70% “not emotionally engaged” (i.e. “emotionally neutral” – but still of some value to the organization) and the bottom 20% were “actively disengaged” (i.e. “hostile” – these folks were actively working against the organization)

    SO Mr Welch recognized that the top 20% of G.E. employees were the “high performers” – i.e. these are the folks getting big raises and promotions. The 70% were still good workers and had the potential to become top 20%-ers – so they received smaller raises and training, then the bottom 10% were “eased out” of the organization.

    Hidden in plain site with the 20/70/10 concept is that the organization is tracking employee performance and giving regular feedback. Most companies seem to find ways to avoid giving regular “employee feedback” – for any number of convenient reasons.

    Obviously when Jack Welch was running G.E. they didn’t have a labor shortage or any issues with hiring new employees. If you are a smaller company then “easing out” the bottom 10% probably isn’t practical – but keeping someone around that is actively hostile to “company goals” is always a bad idea. How you deal with that problem employee as a small company will obviously be different than how a “large multinational conglomerate” deals with the problem (and if that “problem employee” is also a family member – well, that is another issue).

    ownership/recognition

    “Emotional engagement” is just another way of saying “ownership” – i.e. do employees feel a sense of responsibility/obligation for the performance of the company? are employees “invested” in the goals/purpose of the organization? if they are “obligated” and “invested” then they are “engaged.”

    Of course that sense of engagement can be destroyed by mistreating employees – sentient beings are NOT going to willfully work for an organization that treats them like disposable cogs in a machine for a sustained period of time.

    No, that doesn’t mean you coddle employees – it means you communicate honestly with them. No, you are not fooling anyone with the “mushroom treatment” – if you aren’t communicating people will still talk, and most likely that “internal gossip” will be negative.

    How you choose to reward employees is part of company culture – some folks are motivated by “employee of the X” type awards, some aren’t (my opinion: unless they come with a cash bonus – keep your useless award).

    IF you want employees to act like owners – you might want to consider actually making them owners. btw: The reason “CEO” compensation has outstripped “regular employee” compensation is simply because CEO’s tend to get stock options.

    Personally the CEO making a LOT more than “generic employee” doesn’t bother me in the least.

    IF the CEO is acting in the best interest of the organization, providing real leadership, and a positive company culture – then it (probably) isn’t possible to pay them “too much.”

    HOWEVER – if the CEO is using the organization as their personal piggybank, and creating a negative company culture – then it (probably) isn’t possible to dismiss them “too soon.”

    Company culture

    Dan Ariely has written some books on “behavioral economics” (“Predictably Irrational” is the one I read a few years ago).

    Mr Ariely comes to mind because the conclusion of one of his experiments was that “social obligations” tended to produce higher returns than “financial compensation” – I think he had people do a monotonous task and the ones that felt a “social obligation” did the task longer than the ones that were compensated/paid.

    Connecting the dots = employees that are “engaged” have a sense of “ownership” that includes a “social obligation” beyond monetary compensation. (but remember “total compensation” is like oxygen …)

    I’m sure we could easily find (a large number of) people that “work” harder as “volunteers” for non-profit organizations than they do for their “paycheck job” – e.g. in the former they are “engaged” in the latter they aren’t.

    Of course “creation” is always harder than “destruction” – i.e. “creating a positive company culture” requires concerted effort – if it was easy then you wouldn’t see (functionally) the same management books written/released every year …

  • extremists, expert knowledge, more rules don’t make people honest

    Back when “tradition warfare” was, well, “traditional” – I stumbled across a book that tried to answer the age old “why do countries go to ‘war’ against each other.”

    The researchers where approaching the question from a secular psychology perspective – but I’ll point out James 4:1-10 as kind of summarizing what the researchers found – i.e. the problem seems to be part of that ol’ “human nature” thing.

    ANYWAY – this came to mind because (if memory serves – I have a copy of the book somewhere) one of the “phases” on the way to full blown “war” which the researchers identified was the depersonalization of the “other side.”

    In my lifetime I can remember when the residents of the U.S.S.R. were “Godless communists intent on world domination and destroying the American way of life” – which at one point may have been true for the leaders of the Communist Party in Russia, but was almost certainly NOT true for the “average Russian citizen.”

    There were “close calls” where a full blown “traditional war” could have erupted between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. – but obviously it never happened.

    The “why” is beyond me – but the “how” is that the leaders of both nations were always willing to communicate with each other at some level.

    In full blown 20/20 hindsight we might say that they realized that “winning” a modern nuclear war isn’t possible – but that is probably an example of the historian fallacy of seeing events as “inevitable.”

    I’ve heard it argued that “Dynasty” (the 1980’s primetime soap opera) helped end the cold war. How? Well, ordinary folks in the U.S.S.R. were somehow able to watch the show – and the “conspicuous consumption” obvious in the show wasn’t what they had been told life was like in the U.S.

    They didn’t see people waiting in line to buy things, or being put on a waiting list to be able to buy a car. The show was obviously not “real America” BUT then they would have seen the commercials as well – and again they saw “economic prosperity” not “capitalists oppressing the masses.”

    The larger point being that they began to see “Americans” as individual people – not as a large anonymous group.

    Of course in the “west” you can trace a similar change in attitudes by how “Russians” where portrayed in pop-culture.

    The Bond franchise serves as a convenient example – in the “Sean Connery” Bond movies, the “Russians” are anonymous at best. Sure, the U.S.S.R. is never the villain (Spectre is always the “bad guy”). When the villains/antagonists are “eastern European” they are agents of Spectre – but “Russia” exists as an “ominous presence.”

    Then in the “Roger Moore” Bond movies in the 1970’s and early 1980’s the “Russians” were “competition” but not “anonymous enemies.” The two sides were “respected opponents” – not “mortal enemies.”

    Then by the time the U.S.S.R. collapsed in 1991 the “Russians” had become “co-workers” in the Bond Franchise.

    In the late 1980’s and 1990’s we got Timothy Dalton (great actor, not my favorite “Bond”) and then Pierce Brosnan as Bond – and the “bad guys” were drug dealers and “extremists.”

    Finally in “No Time To Die” – Daniel Craig as Bond says his Russian is “rusty” …

    Extremists

    SO – obvious economic, cultural, ethnic differences aside – people tend to be the same where ever you go 😉

    The rule of thumb seems to be that “extremist views” are dangerous and must be censored/controlled. The question becomes “what makes someone an extremist.”

    It must be pointed out that just because you don’t agree with the message, or don’t like the messenger – does not make the message “extreme.”

    e.g. “I think men that button the top button – and don’t wear a tie – look silly.” Agree or disagree (I see enough guys with “top button buttoned/no tie” enough to know that some folks disagree with me) am I an extremist? obviously not.

    MAYBE, the easiest way to identify an “extremist” is that they tend to address those that disagree with them as a malicious group – just like the “early phase to war”.

    e.g. “I think men that button the top button – and don’t wear a tie – look silly AND they are out to destroy us all therefore they must be censored!” extremist? this time very much “yes”

    (oh, and while I’m at it – belt OR suspenders NOT both, and you over there pull up your pants and tie those shoes!)

    Expert Knowledge

    Silly examples aside – we have run headlong into the concept of “expert knowledge.”

    Merriam-Webster tell us an expert is someone with “special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject.”

    Another way to put it is that an “expert” is someone that knows “more and more about less and less.”

    SO while I don’t consider myself an expert on ANY subject – I get paid to talk about computers/technology. Sometimes I might appear to “know things” but that is usually an illusion – some form of this quote applies:

    It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt of it.

    HOWEVER – a lot of actual research has been done into the “learning process.” I tend to use the term “expert knowledge” because in the early 1990’s the concept of “expert systems” was something of a computing fad (which probably grew into “AI” and/or “computer learning” in the last few years) – but call it the “path to mastery” if you prefer.

    When we first start learning about a subject we tend to over generalize as part of “knowledge processing.”

    The old saying that someone “Can’t see the forest because of the trees” might be an example of the concept “amateur knowledge.”

    e.g. someone first learning about “trees” might go out and look at a bunch of different types of trees in the same area and come away from the experience overwhelmed by information about individual trees.

    It turns out that “experts” – as in “those that have ‘mastered’ a certain set of skills/knowledge” – tend to seamlessly go from specific to general and back again.

    e.g. the “expert” showing that group of amateurs the trees also has an appreciation for how those trees interact with each other as well as the impact “the forest” has on the larger ecosystem.

    Which kinda means that the “expert” sees the trees AND the forest.

    Of course there is a Biblical reference – umm, I’ll just point out that those who were regarded as “experts” where quizzing Jesus on the “greatest commandment” – and Jesus summarizes the teachings of what we call the Old Testament in two sentences – which probably also illustrates that there are always more people that THINK they are “experts” on a subject than are ACTUALLY experts …

    as always, don’t trust me – I am only a bear of very little brain 😉

    Rules, Rules, Rules

    From a organizational behavior point of view “more rules do not make people better.”

    I’ve worked for a couple of places that wanted me to sign “non compete” agreements – which I was happy to sign because signing the “non compete” agreement was completely pointless.

    I understand that the employer wanted to guard themselves against someone coming in and stealing “organizational intellectual property” or (more likely in the tech support arena) an employee stealing “customer support contracts” and starting their own company.

    I say it was pointless both because the judicial system rarely enforces “non compete” type contracts AND because if I was the type of person that would actually do what they are afraid of – then no “contract” would stop me from doing it.

    The point being that “making a bunch of rules” hoping to change the behavior of lazy/stupid/malicious employees ends up making the “good employees” less productive.

    i.e. the people that are doing what the rules are supposed to stop don’t care about the rules, and the people that aren’t doing it will be burdened by having to comply with additional (pointless) rules.

    SO there is probably an inverse relationship between the size of the “employee manual” and the efficiency/productivity of the organization – but that falls into the “personal observation” category

    … with the obvious addendum that industries will differ and the need to comply with “regulation” is the root cause for a lot of very large employee manuals…

    EVEN WORSE

    Then add in that the additional rules are (usually) made because of a problem with an individual that is no longer with the organization.

    This becomes my favorite example of “incompetent management 101” – i.e. they are “managing” employees that aren’t there anymore.

    Hey, I’m sorry the last guy was an incompetent jerk – how about we pretend like I’m NOT an incompetent jerk – you know, just in case I’m NOT that other person that caused you problems.

    Yes, that is (almost certainly) unfair – with “interpersonal relationships” of any kind, it is seldom only one sides “fault” – a Hank Williams song comes to mind – but that is a different subject 😉

    $600? $10,000? does it really matter?

    Those with long memories might remember Eliot Spitzer (for those that don’t there is a documentary called Client 9).

    Salacious aspects aside – Mr. Spitzer reportedly got caught in part because of deposit notification rules

    “They” (as in the various law enforcement entities involved) have been monitoring “large deposits” in an effort to catch “money laundering” by drug cartels and terrorists for a long time. I’m not sure HOW long, but it has been going on for awhile.

    Apparently Mr Spitzer was aware of the rules in question – and so he purposefully kept his withdrawals below the $10,000 limit that was supposed to trigger notification.

    It turns out that the people that work in the banking industry aren’t complete idiots – SO they had been monitoring for “suspicious activity” that someone trying to avoid setting off the automatic notification limit might use.

    It wasn’t the AMOUNT of the transactions that got Mr Spitzer investigated – it was the suspicious behavior that caused the investigation.

    I don’t know if it was still based on a specific limit or not – i.e. did 3 transactions of $4,000 each in the same week equal 1 transaction of $12,000? either way, it doesn’t matter.

    The point is that if you are trying to catch scofflaws you need to monitor behaviors NOT specific transaction amounts.

    Which PROBABLY means that any law requiring “automatic reporting” to “some gov’ment agency” is also PROBABLY pointless for “law enforcement” purposes and simply becomes gov’ment intrusion on individual liberty – i.e. another step towards “Big Brother” watching you – which might start with noble intentions but becomes the slippery slope to modern serfdom …

  • the “happiness” thing, team sports, usefulness

    The problem with “happiness” is that it is easy to recognize as a concept but (for most folks) hard to nail down causality on a regular basis.

    Merriam-Webster tells us that “happiness” is “a state of well-being and contentment.” Easy enough – but can “happiness” be measured? Where is the “happiness store?” Can I get free two-day shipping on my “happiness?”

    Yes, I’m being silly – but you get the point.

    The “happiness” quote

    An oft repeated thought is that “Happiness isn’t about getting what you want. It is about wanting what you got.”

    -Anonymous

    Good ol’ Aristotle argued that human motivation could be reduced to the idea that humans “do things that make them happy.” Which is a great simplification – and implies that the “human” in question actually understands “what makes them happy.”

    At this point I’ll point out that “material possessions” do not always equal “happiness.” The old hierarchy of needs comes to mind – e.g. of course if you are cold and hungry then NOT being cold and hungry will certainly make you “happy” – BUT if you are warm and well-fed then other needs require “servicing” for “happiness.”

    Add in that constantly examining yourself to see if you are “happy” is a sure fire way to NOT be happy – and it is easy to see why anti-depressant medication is so popular in “modern times.”

    the sure path to unhappiness

    Just for fun (with tongue in cheek – talking in general terms) – I’ll point out that (just in general) if you want to be “healthy” then it is a very good idea to NOT stab yourself in the thigh with a knife, shoot yourself in the foot, or get hit by a bus.

    In the same line of reasoning – if you want to be happy avoid bad relationships. I’ll throw out Proverbs 12:4 and Proverbs 19:13 as examples.

    Solomon was blessed with wisdom, but then he “lost his way” in large part to the fact that he had 700 wives and 300 concubines. I’m sure each one of those marriages “made sense at the time” – but Solomon (via Proverbs) very strongly implies that having one “faithful and prudent” wife (and of course the husband being faithful and prudent as well – i.e. a “good marriage”) – is worth more than any amount of “material possessions.”

    The light-hearted early Rock & Roll novelty song version drives home the point found at the end of the book of Proverbs

    … and of course these are all observations from the crazy ol’ bachelor – um, don’t hate me because I’m beautiful – I’m not giving advice, just making observations 😉

    a process not a destination

    Way back when good ol’ Solomon “had it all” – and discovered that “having it all” didn’t MAKE him happy. The book of Ecclesiastes records Solomon’s (inspired) thoughts on the matter

    SO the idea becomes that “happiness” is not a constant state of being – but is the result/product of other actions.

    Maybe it isn’t that “happiness is an elusive butterfly” so much as that “happiness is the process of being useful/productive.”

    Team Sports

    If you’ve seen an episode of “The Dog Whisperer” you’ve seen the difference between “simple association” (dogs, most animals in general) and “complex emotional beings” (humanity in general).

    Many dog breeds are the way they are because humans intentionally breed the dogs that way. Which means that most dogs are happier when they are doing what they were bred to do.

    The ongoing popularity of “The Dog Whisperer” is due to the fact that when humans have behavior issues with their canine companion, it tends to be a problem with the human expecting the dog to act like a little human and not a dog (yes, your dog loves you. yes, your dog understands you more than most people would expect. no, your dog is not a little human).

    Of course the inverse is also true – human beings are not dogs. We naturally want to have “control over our environment” but that doesn’t come about by “simple associations” (like dogs).

    Volumes on “abnormal psychology” have been written about the disastrous impact a “lack of a sense of self mastery/control” can be – i.e. the classic “serial killer” profile includes bed wetting past a certain age – yes, that is extreme to say the least – and of course there is a relevant Proverb

    (the short “Silence of the Lambs” – psych 101 – serial killer explanation is that the “serial killer” gets a “pleasurable release” by committing their serial killing. As opposed to mass murderers, or spree killers – i.e. so the “serial killer” will continue to kill until stopped because they “need” it – and moving on …)

    The point being that we all want to feel like we are part of something bigger than ourselves, AND that we are contributing to the success of that “larger something.”

    In extremely generic terms – this is why giving children “chores” qualifies as “parenting advice” in 2021. Yes. it is probably “easier” for the parent to just do “whatever the chore” is themselves – but the child will be “happier” in the long run if they are held accountable for their “chores.”

    Oh yeah, sports …

    Ok, so now that the crazy ol’ bachelor has given suggestions on marriage and how not to raise a serial killer – the value of team sports and the connection to “happiness” …

    A long time removed from my “athlete” days – I can say that what I miss about playing “sports” is NOT the games.

    Obviously for competitive athletes the games are the whole point. As a spectator, almost any competition can be fun to watch – by definition all “sports” have defined rules and a measurable result (i.e. winner/loser) – neither of which are common in the “real world.”

    What I miss is the “team” aspect of sports and the “purpose” that competition provides. Winning and losing games/seasons can be out of anyone’s control – but the preparation that goes into playing the games provides a common goal/purpose. i.e. it is that sense of common purpose and “team goals” that I miss – both of which are examples of a “human need” for “happiness”.

    Sure, “winning is a habit” just like “losing is a habit” (thank you Vince Lombardi) – but in the long term an “average player” probably gets just as much (if not more) value from playing a team sport as that “college bound superstar” player.

    Pro sports are “pro sports” but concern with the happiness of individual players is (probably) one of the great differentiators between “pro sports franchises.”

    To be clear – that “average player” that shows up ready to practice everyday hoping they might get into the game that week – is a VERY valuable part of the team. Cliches abound – but the point is that the “practice team” has to take pleasure in the process – which is certainly an example of finding “happiness.” Then, when the team wins ALL of the members of the team “win.”

    Usefulness

    Of course negative lessons can also be learned from “playing sports” just as easily as positive lessons – e.g. I’m not a big fan of “organized youth sports” when it becomes more about the parents than the children (different subject).

    From a “human development” point of view I don’t see any value in children that can barely walk/run participating in “organized team sports” – simply because it is NOT “useful” except maybe as baby-sitting/socialization.

    Again, “just in general” – young humans want “structure” but not “regimentation.” The old “ditch” analogy is (as always) valid – in one ditch is “completely unorganized” and in the other ditch “mini-pro sports level organization” – stay on the road and you are probably gonna be better off.

    Solitary Confinement

    Being an extreme introvert – I like to point out that the only thing worse that Always being alone is NEVER being alone (remember, stay on the road 😉 )

    Consider the practice of imprisonment and then “solitary confinement.”

    (tongue in cheek, again) If someone does something violent/bad enough society may restrict the movement of that person. Then if that someone does something bad while imprisoned – what happens?

    Well, I suppose a lot of things could happen – BUT take the extreme case where someone keeps attacking their cell-mate. Eventually the “solution” is solitary confinement.

    Sure, putting that “someone” with homicidal tendencies into solitary confinement will (almost certainly) make them worse. However, they have proven that they can’t play nice with polite society – and must be confined to protect others.

    Anyway – I’m not arguing about the positive/negative values of the penal system – just pointing out that the ultimate penalty (short of death) is solitary confinement.

    SO modern society tends to encourage self-imposed “solitary confinement.” The “information age” has given us the “isolation age” in various forms.

    The problem isn’t technology in and of itself – but technology tends to be “human interaction lite” not a substitute for actual human interaction. Social media should be the icing on the “interpersonal communication cake” NOT the entire meal.

    Umm, all of which means “family meals” are a good suggestion along with giving your child chores. But that wasn’t where I was heading …

    ANYWAY – I always point out that folks tend to make decisions based on what they THINK will make them happy. In much the same way people want to be “useful” but often don’t know how.

    No, your salary is not a measure of your “value” but it is probably an indication of your “usefulness” to your employer. The problem becomes how to be “useful” without losing site of the “big picture” – i.e. the “job” is important but never THE MOST important thing in your life.

    A related part of the problem (in the U.S. in 2021) is that “work” is considered a necessary evil not as a worthy endeavor. Sure, not every job is a “forever job” – but all work has value.

    The solution is simple – all that we need is to train and then place everyone in the job for which they are best suited. Simple. How do you do that on a large scale? Well, that is harder … and probably not possible on a “national” scale

    From a “hey wasn’t he talking about ‘happiness’ at some point” level the wild finish – one of the most prescribed drugs in 2020 addresses Vitamin D deficiency (brand name “Drisdol”) –

    Which kinda implies that proper care and feeding of the machine carrying your brain around is important for “happiness.” Diet and exercise matter for mental health – who would a thunk it?

    Also worth pointing out is that “walks in nature” tend to be beneficial beyond the “getting exercise” part.

    SO maybe there is a community building idea for someone feeling entrepreneurial – combine nature hikes with random group pairings and a meal. Collect all cell phones before the walk, give them back after the meal, maybe groups of three or four people just for liability purposes … who knows, it might work if implemented correctly …

  • parenting, birth order, destiny

    Recently noticed a “social media post” from a well meaning individual about individual responsibility – that I would tend to agree with, but is still slightly specious …

    Before starting, I feel obligated to point out that no one has “perfect parents” – we are all imperfect human beings. I will argue that MOST parents are trying very hard and doing the best they can with what they have.

    I am NOT talking about anyone in particular. My Bachelors degree is in “Liberal Studies” – e.g. which kind of means I took a lot of psychology and history classes, but not enough of either to get a degree is “psychology” or “history.”

    Umm, so whoever is reading this – I’m not talking about you 😉 Most of what I’ll point out has “research” to back it up and of course the occasional Bible verse will popup.

    Parenting

    The “motivating meme” said something about children raised by the same parents turning out differently – the old one is a Sinner the other a Saint, but both came from the same circumstances/had the same parents.

    This is where the “speciousness” occurs – the assumption is both that “parenting” is a uniform/consistent product and that children are all the same.

    Two individuals can grow up in the same household with the same parents and have very different “parenting experiences.”

    Part of that difference is due to the fact that “parenting” isn’t something you buy in cans from the “parenting” store. Once more – there are no perfect human parents – because there are no “perfect” humans.

    (oh, and this is where if someone says there family is “perfect” – feel free to ask them about their eating disorder. No family is “perfect” but thinking you are supposed to be part of a “perfect” family tends to be a sign of an eating disorder.)

    The point is that “parents” are living life as well – again, most parents are doing the best they can.

    Of course differences in “parenting” between “families” is easy to understand – but my subject today differences in children raised by the same parents.

    I’ve chatted with (some) parents that admit they thought their first child would be a “blank slate” that just needed to be “trained right” and everything would be perfect (this is the old “tabula rasa” theory).

    Well, then it turns out that the child came with a “disposition” and the “blank slate” thinking goes out the window.

    SO this is where the “humans are complex emotional beings” concept comes into play – no two siblings are going to be EXACTLY the same. If the same two parents have multiple children, then each child comes with a “disposition” installed at the factory 😉

    Birth Order

    Back in “the old days” of “landed gentry” the cliche was that in a family with four male children – the first born would inherit the “estate” (and enter politics), the second born would join the military, and the third would go into “law”, and the fourth would join the “church”.

    That tradition sounds “cute” in 2021 – but in an agricultural society “land” equals “wealth.” Obviously if the family divided the land between all the children, eventually the segments of land would be to small to be productive.

    The point for bringing up that tradition is to point out the difference “birth order” would have made on parenting expectations “back then.”

    I’m not sure how much “real research” has been done on “birth order” and the results on the child’s personality/psychology. More responsibility being placed on older children would be normal, but that doesn’t translate into “birth order rules” – again, parents aren’t manufacturing a product, and children are individuals.

    In the course of “getting to know” someone – I tend to ask about siblings and birth order. No, I don’t draw any conclusions about someone based on their birth order – there is (probably) more telling information in how they talk about their family than the size of the family – but that isn’t important now 😉

    In 2021 pointing out that “two parent” households tend to do better, then “single parent” households can get you called names – but there it is.

    We (as in “humanity”) also tend to “parent” the way we were “parented.” Which means that dysfunctional families tend to create MORE dysfunctional families – e.g. children of alcoholics will often marry alcoholics (a therapist might say they are “working on resolving primary relationship issues” – but I ain’t a therapist 😉 )

    In any case there is a BIG difference between “good enough”/”average” parenting and “abusive”/”truly dysfunctional” parenting.

    Medea from Greek mythology comes to mind – did they murder their children? no? then they did SOMETHING right (did I mention I’m not judging anyone?)

    The cliche that the best gift you can give your children is to have a strong marriage – is still true – BUT again, that is a “general statement” not written in stone. Did I mention that parents are people too?

    I’m not judging just pointing out that if you want “better adults” then “stronger families” are probably a good place to start – and I’m moving on …

    Destiny

    The whole “free will” vs “fate”/destiny comes to mind at this point.

    The Judeo Christian tradition has splintered quite a bit on this subject – and I won’t try to summarize 500 years of “Protestantism” here. How about if I just say that a lot of smart people have thought/written a lot about the subject – and it is probably beyond human explanation – and moving on.

    This verse from the Book of Proverbs (22:6) summarizes “parenting 101” expectations – then Deuteronomy 24:16 tells us that “every man shall be put to death for his own sin”

    Taken out of context – this Shakespeare quote (from “Julius Caesar”) “the fault is not in our stars but in ourselves” sounds like a good summary of this almost 1,000 word ramble …

    (but “in context”, well, Brutus was an honorable man, they were ALL honorable men – which probably works even better – i.e. the line is used to convince Brutus that Julius Caesar must be assassinated for the “common good”)

  • Capitalism, unions, THINK

    Capitalism
    “Capital” is simply “money and goods” used to produce more “money and goods.” Merriam-Webster tells me the first known use of the term “capitalism” goes back to 1833.

    It is slightly interesting that “Banking” goes back to 1660. Then the parable of the “minas” also comes to mind (where earning “interest” is mentioned in passing – not as the central message).

    If you want to be slightly cynical you might argue that humans are “economic animals” (the first occurrence of “economic” popping up in 1599 with an archaic meaning of “of or relating to a household or its management” – thank you Merriam-Webster).

    If I have a point – it is simply that human beings are capable of creating goods and services and then exchanging those goods and services for “something else” (“money” is a convenient concept – the word first appeared in English in the 14th Century).

    Behaviorism
    If you are a student of human development – you might recognize the “behaviorist” theory of human motivation that tries to boil down all human actions to “reactions to stimuli” of some form – e.g. incentives, rewards, punishments of various forms.

    This always sounds plausible – i.e. why does anyone do anything? they want “something” in exchange?

    It isn’t as bad as it may sound – the “something” doesn’t have to be “money.” Someone donating their time to help those in need might be receiving a non-tangible benefit – something like “sense of purpose”, “self-worth”, or the REALLY hard to nail down “happiness.”

    Human beings are also complex emotional beings – so saying that someone did something for a SINGLE purpose is always hard. We can get an understanding of someone by observing what they “do” AND how they “do it.” The amount of “character information” in a single action is limited – the more “behavior data” available, the more accurate the “character profile.”

    Fictional Characters
    When you are reading a novel or watching a movie – one of two lines of dialogue or a few actions may be there to “say something important” about the character.

    e.g. In a “cute” movie from 1993 “Amos & Andrew” Nicolas Cage plays a petty thief with a terrible “sense of direction” – which becomes “character information” as well as “running joke” (warning: this movie makes fun of a LOT of “self righteous” authority stereotypes – so it isn’t exactly “politically correct” in 2021 – but it is “fun”)

    I also have a terrible “sense of direction” – which if I was a fictional character might be important – but in the real world doesn’t mean anything in particular except that I shouldn’t be the first choice to drive if “navigation without Google” is required.

    Wait, where are we going?
    Most “-isms” aren’t inherently good or bad. It is always the implementation of the “system” that becomes problematic.

    So pick you favorite “-ism” – on paper it probably looks perfect/pure/”good.” Implement it with human beings, and things get messy.

    Consider “capitalism” – how can anyone object to the idea of people using “money and goods” to make MORE “money and goods.” In an efficient “market economy” we would see natural division of labor – e.g. not everyone needs to make their own bread every day, the baker can specialize in “baking bread” – the butcher can specialize in “meat production” – and the candlestick maker can specialize in whatever candlestick makers did 😉

    The baker/butcher/candlestick maker will probably produce better quality products at a lower price – so even when they add a small amount to the price of their product to make a “profit”, the consumer is better off than if they had to do it all themselves.

    Then the wise craftsman would set aside part of their profits and invest it in expanding/improving their craft, or hiring/training workers to produce more quality goods and services.

    Assuming everything goes well, eventually the craftsman has “money and goods” to invest in other enterprises – so our baker/butcher/candlestick maker has suddenly become a “capitalist.”

    Historically I can say that “community ovens” where common 1500 years ago, then folks would bring there bread to the baker and pay to have it baked, eventually got to the point where (in the U.S. at least) we have “walls of bread” at the supermarket – all due to individuals acting in their own best interest and providing a needed service.

    A modern version of that story is told in “The Donut King” – and also the negative side of human nature. i.e. Ted Ngoy built a “donut empire” by helping others and then greed and lust destroyed that empire.

    Banking
    Explaining the modern “banking system” probably requires its own class – but at a basic level it is still just a “business” that holds peoples money and lends out that money to other people in exchange for “interest.”

    That “money” stuff also has a “time-value” – which is really not important at the moment.

    ANYWAY – when our wise baker wants to “invest” his profits he would start by putting some of his money in a bank/financial institution of some kind.

    If the bank pays our baker “2% interest” on deposits and then is able to lend that money at 4% to the butcher (who wants to expand his business) – then once again, everyone wins.

    Once again, “banking” isn’t good or bad – just a business. Once again the real problem becomes “greed” not financial institutions/capitalism.

    Our imaginary banker might be making a living off of that 2% difference between loans and deposits. Even if our banker is completely honest – there is always the risk of “moral hazard” – e.g. what happens if the Donut King takes out a big loan to “expand the business” and then runs off to Las Vegas and loses it all on blackjack?

    Well, in the real world financial institutions are heavily regulated and have to keep a certain amount of “reserve capital” for “bad loans.”

    Again, once normal people get involved and not “theoretical models on paper” – things get messy.

    Frank Capra
    Frank Capra was one of the great movie makers of early Hollywood. Many of his movies get interpreted as “communist sympathizing” by biased modern audiences.

    Since it tends to get shown every Christmas season “It’s a Wonderful Life” is probably Mr Capra’s most familiar movie to “modern audiences.”

    If you watch the movie – it is a small – and easy to miss – plot point that Mr Potter (the movie’s villain) buys the local bank during an economic downturn. Mr Potter is guilty of both bitterness and greed – and uses the bank for those purposes.

    The “true capitalist” in the movie is George Bailey (played by Jimmy Stewart). Mr Bailey runs the “Building and Loan” – which in 2021 terms would probably be considered a “credit union.”

    I suppose there is someone that hasn’t seen the movie – so I won’t give away the ending. I’ll just point out that “people working together for common benefit” is not unique to ANY “-ism” –

    George Bailey is (probably) exceptionally generous, while Mr Potter is exceptionally greedy – so if anything the movie is a morality tale about the superiority of generosity over greed – BUT certainly not an endorsement of communism.

    Looking at Frank Capra’s movies as a whole – you see a common thread of “individual liberty over authoritarianism.” Of course he was making movies in and around the Great Depression – but if his movies are concerned with a particular “-ism” then it is “individualism.”

    Remember the command is to “love your neighbor as yourself” – so individuals within a society have obligations to other members of that society as well as privileges within that society. BUT society does not “own” the individual and society does not “owe” the individual anything – we are all free moral and economic agents with responsibilities

    Have I mentioned these things get “real world” messy very fast …

    Who makes the decisions
    Look at all of the “-isms” from 10,000 feet and they kind of look the same. The key differentiator in “real world economic systems” usually centers around who makes the decisions.

    SO should you bake bread or make candlesticks? Maybe one, maybe the other, probably you want to do something completely different – should you make that decision or should someone else tell you what you are going to do?

    Well, almost everyone is going opt for “let me make my own decision.” Which is the fantasy that “true communism” tries to sell – maybe in an truly efficient optimal society where “everyone VOLUNTARILY contributes as required” AND “everything required for living is freely available” that might be possible.

    Meanwhile in the real world – “real work” tends to get neglected simply because, well, it is “work.”

    The oversimplified history lesson
    HISTORICALLY – most folks have been subsistence farmers. i.e. “choosing a career” (for the average person) was never really an option for MOST of human history.

    Then, well, “capitalism” happened – ok, from a “western civilization” point of few the “Black Death” wiped out enough people in Europe that “economic mobility” increased. Labor became scarce – and therefore more valuable.

    The old “middle school world history textbook” explanation of the divisions of Medieval Europe was that there were three groups – 1. those that “fought” (the upper class/nobility), 2. those that “prayed” (the Church), and 3. those that “worked” (everyone else – again, a lot of subsistence farmers).

    The rise of a skilled middle class/merchants kind of disrupted the status quo. Then the wealth accumulated by that skilled middle class/merchants combined with the “body count” from the Black Death allowed for “social mobility.”

    SO as a rule of thumb – we see “economic liberty” always precedes “civil liberty.”

    Unions
    Squeezed into that mess somewhere are “trade unions.” Once upon a time these were formal agreements between a “master” and an “apprentice” intended to provide labor for the “master” and training for the “apprentice.”

    In a world without “accreditations”/”licenses”/”certifications” the apprenticeship was a way to pass on skills and give some guarantee of “quality” to the consumer. e.g. paying for the “trade union approved” work might cost a little more – but you could expect quality work.

    The “modern labor union” probably dates back to the industrial revolution and the creation of “factories” and then the “assembly line.” The “union job” might still be skilled labor, but the trend was towards “unskilled commodity labor.”

    The “assembly line” broke the creation/assembly process into smaller processes – i.e. a single worker was easily replaced because the skills to perform the task could be easily taught/learned (no long drawn out master/apprentice process required).

    Unions Good
    There were a LOT of “abuses of labor” early in the industrial revolution. Child labor, long work days, no “job security” or “workman’s compensation” – early “labor unions” helped bring about needed reform.

    The real motivation for “management” to change how they treated “labor” probably revolved around productivity and worker efficiency.

    Henry Ford famously offered a $5 a day wage in 1914 (when the average daily wage was around $2). The improved wages cut down on employee turnover and improved Ford’s profitability – i.e. paying workers more made them stick around longer and the company actually made more money.

    In “modern times” organized labor is on the decline for any number of reasons – part of the problem is that “the Unions” got big and corrupt at worst/inefficient at best.

    Unions not so good
    Yes, the modern workplace owes “unions” a great deal – but the old “Animal Farm” story applies – i.e. if/when the “new masters” start acting like the “old masters” the ordinary worker pays the price.

    The decline of the American auto-industry serves as a good example – with the Unions illustrating that “greed” is a problem for “labor” as well as “management.”

    Yes, it is a complicated issue – but ideally the “union” should be a partner with “management.” If the relationship is adversarial then no one “wins.”

    e.g. For years “Southwest Airlines” treated their labor union as a partner – and had a long run of profitability (and appear to be coming out of the pandemic fueled downturn).

    ANYWAY – unions aren’t “good” or “bad.” If they serve their members by providing a common communication platform, then they are doing a great job. If all the “union” does is collect dues, make political contributions, and bitch about how management doesn’t want to pay more, then they are probably NOT doing a great job.

    Unions and Communism
    Another pet peeve is the idea that somehow “unions” and “communism” are dependent on each other when they are completely unrelated.

    Unions are not “communism”, communism is not “unions” – unions are about organization, “communism” (as it exists in the real world and not some academic fantasy) is about gov’ment control of the economy.

    I suppose a communist regime might require all workers join a union – but again, that is “management” (i.e. the gov’ment) communicating with “labor” (i.e. individual workers) en masse.

    Meanwhile in a “free market capitalist” system the decision to form a union or not would be left up to the workers – not coerced from above.

  • roots of happiness

    A study of character
    Just watched “Citizen Kane” again – always near the top of the “best American movies” list, it wasn’t a commercial success when first released.

    PART of the problem is that the movie is very much a “character study.” I suppose the main character getting divorced twice might have been more interesting in 1941 – but there is nothing that would qualify as an “action sequence” which is always kind of the recipe for “low box office” numbers.

    Of course this is the sort of movie that “critics” would describe as an “adult story” – e.g. no fist fights, no car chases, no gunfight in the middle of the street, etc.

    What audiences get is a McGuffin driven mystery and a deep dive into the character of a “wealthy failure.” Don’t get me wrong – it is a great movie – just NOT the type of movie that you would ever expect to set records at the box office.

    Studio System
    Of course it would have done better at the box office if it hadn’t been “blacklisted” by William Randolph Hearst’s media empire. At the time the movie was considered to be “about” Mr Hearst – the movie essentially got a “limited release” because theater owners refused to show the movie in fear of reprisal from the Hearst empire.

    In reality the movie isn’t a “bio pic” about Hearst. It contains references to real life events that 1941 audiences would have associated with various “famous rich folks” – not JUST Hearst.

    Also worth pointing out is that the “studio system” at the time tended to control the entire process of movie production and distribution (i.e. studios could own movie theater chains – a practice that required a Supreme Court ruling to end it in 1948).

    Maybe not surprisingly the reputation of “Citizen Kane” improved in the 1950’s.

    My personal opinion is that Orson Welles would have found much more commercial success if he was 25 years old in 1971 instead of 1941 – kind of like Marty in Back to the Future

    Boy Genius
    Orson Welles had earned his “boy genius” status through radio and stage productions – so what jumped out at me in this viewing is the fact that the movie “feels” like a radio show. A lot of talking heads/interviews – minimal “action.” Yes, the visual style was “groundbreaking”, the cinematography is great – and the visuals obviously enhance the story – still not a “popcorn movie”.

    Mr Welles always said that he didn’t get a lot of money to make “Citizen Kane” – what he got was “control.” Back in 1941 the movie had a $1 million budget – which I’m told was typical for the time.

    The 2021 comparison – “independent” movies tend to have budgets in the $400,000 to $2 million range. My guess is that the LEAST a “studio” will budget for a project is $5 to $10 million – but then we get into “creative Hollywood accounting practices.”

    When “Citizen Kane” received great reviews from the “critics” but bombed at the box office – the blue print for Welles’ relationship with “Hollywood” was probably set – Orson Welles never got the amount of “artistic freedom” he desired from that point on.

    Of course the “movie business” is a “business” – so I’m not sure anyone is to “blame.” For his part Welles’ never appeared angry or bitter but it had to be frustrating.

    The “cost” problems in 2021 usually involve “post production labor” – as in the team of “digital artists” required to produce all those CGI effects the big budget blockbusters tend to be full of.

    Oh, and in 2021 the process of “self funding” for an “Orson Welles” type artist is much easier with this modern technology stuff — but once again I digress …

    Happiness
    As for the character of “Charles Foster Kane” – Luke 12:15 comes to mind followed closely by Ecclesiastes 5:10 BUT the movie isn’t condemning greed so much as pointing out that “buying more stuff won’t make you happy.”

    If the Charles Foster Kane character had been “greedy” then he wouldn’t have made the business decisions he made. He would have worked with the shady politicians, not try to joust with windmills as a “political reformer”.

    A “McGuffin” is any plot device that is used to advance the plot/story – but isn’t ‘valuable’ in and if itself – e.g. the black bird statuette in “The Maltese Falcon”, the Dude’s carpet in “The Big Lebowski” and then probably the most famous McGuffin in movie history – “Rosebud” in “Citizen Kane.”

    While the “Citizen Kane” plot is driven by the search for “Rosebud” – the point is made that human beings are complex emotional beings, and “one object” can never sum up anyone’s “total character” (well, they don’t put it that way – we get a little speech before the big reveal)

    Psycho 101
    The “psych 101” character analysis would start with his parents (implied) bad marriage, followed by the fact that his mother “sends him away to school” – i.e. the cliche of abusive father and emotionally distance mother is easy to imagine (and notice the sled he is playing with when his mother tells him he is “going on a trip”).

    Then Mr Kane gets kicked out of multiple colleges before deciding that running a newspaper sounds like “fun” (i.e. he has been aimless, waiting to come of age to inherit/control his family fortune).

    The newspaper becomes a way to “win the love” of “the public” – i.e. his addiction is “newspaper circulation” not “hedonistic alcohol abuse” (like Arthur Bach in “Arthur”) – but both characters are looking for people to “play along with them”

    TWO divorces!
    The cliche used to be that only the wealthy could afford to get divorced – that obviously doesn’t mean that “poor people” had happier marriages, just that getting a divorce used to be much harder in the “pre no fault divorce” days (1969 California passed first ‘no-fault’ divorce bill).

    I’m not throwing any stones at anyone – just pointing out that in true “production code censorship” style Mr Kane has an extramarital affair (which ends his first marriage and any political ambitions) but I don’t think we see a “bed” in the entire movie (well, there is a scene when he takes over the newspaper and they bring a “bed” into the office because he plans on sleeping there – but no men and women in the same room with a bed).

    Modern audiences will probably infer that Mr Kane wasn’t just being nice paying for the singing lessons – i.e. if an older wealthy man is paying for a young beautiful woman’s apartment and “singing lessons” he PROBABLY isn’t just listening to her sing.

    Sure, I can imagine a scenario where he just wants to help the young lady – BUT IF it was a “mentor” type relationship then he would have informed his wife in some form.

    Hubris
    A common trait of many “tragic figures” is arrogance/excessive pride/hubris. SO if we once again consider Charles Kane and Arthur Bach – Mr Kane “wants to be loved,” but then is full of pride and wants “more” – If Mr Kane isn’t a narcissist, then he is a type of “emotional black whole” that can’t be satisfied. Meanwhile Arthur Bach “wants to be loved,” but is humble to the point of being meek

    e.g. Mr Kane shouts “I’m Charles Foster Kane” at the shady politician that has exposed (Mr. Kane’s) adultery – while Arthur tells the wedding guests that his fiancee has decided not to marry him (after he has been beaten up by her father after telling her that the wedding is off).

    ANYWAY if there are lessons to be learned from “Citizen Kane” one of those lessons is NOT a condemnation of capitalism as a system. Arrogance and greed are never good – but “money” is just a tool and isn’t “good” or “bad” – 1 Timothy 6:10 comes to mind

    fwiw: I’ve heard enough people try to cram this “capitalism is evil” interpretation into a number of classic movies – enough that it might become its own post … maybe next week 😉

  • fugitives, vagabonds, and vagrants

    Fun with words…
    A recent Merriam-Webster “word of the day” was “fugitive.” Being a “fugitive” implies actively fleeing something — as opposed to being a vagabond which implies “wandering” (as in aimless movement).

    Then there is vagrancy – which implies “marginal” legal status at best. Laws against vagrancy used to common in the U.S. – I’m told many have been struck down because they were “unconstitutional” in some form.

    “First Blood” came to mind – it has been a few years since I watched the movie, but as I recall it starts with John Rambo “wandering” and getting arrested for “vagrancy” by the “unethical Sherriff” of a small town (who maintains order in his tiny kingdom by “encouraging” vagrants to “move on”).

    That concept of “arrest them because they are poor and MIGHT engage in criminal activity” certainly sounds “Unconstitutional.”

    Kind of like the old if you have a lot of money and act weird, you are “eccentric” – but if you are poor and act weird, you are “crazy.” i.e. if you are visiting a town and have money to spend – you are a “tourist” – but if you are poor and visit a town you are a “vagrant.”

    … and if you are a renegade (which implies active rejection of “polite society” as it were), well, you are probably in fear for your life from the longarm of the law

    Pop culture
    Of course stories of “wanderers” have (probably) been told for as long as folks have been telling stories.

    In the Odyssey Homer tells the story of Odysseus’ 10 years of wandering trying to get home from the Trojan War. As an adventure story it holds up very well today. There aren’t any great versions I can recommend – but there are a lot of “not bad” versions. Modern audiences won’t automatically understand much of the underlying motivation for various characters, but the story itself isn’t overly complicated (college classes get taught on the subject – e.g. HarvardX is offering a class on the “Ancient Greek Hero” – I haven’t taken this particular class, I’m guessing you will get a lot on Achilles from the “Iliad” and then Odysseus free to “audit”).

    I’ll point out that for MOST of human history being “banished” from the larger society wasn’t just “inconvenient” – it could amount to a death sentence. If nothing else “exile” meant (involuntary) picking up and moving somewhere new.

    I suppose the “can’t go to Texas because all his ex-wives live there” is a (humorous) modern example of a “modern fugitive.” Maybe Mr. Shakespeare’s “King Lear” becomes a “fugitive” story at some level – but that is just the gratuitous “Shakespeare” example.

    Certainly Les Misérables sets the pattern for the “modern fugitive story” – with similar plot elements in “The Fugitive” (tv show from 1963-1967) and then “The Incredible Hulk” (tv show 1977-1982) as well as many others (i.e. “accused of a crime they didn’t commit, pursued by the powers that be”).

    (though didn’t Jean Val Jean steal bread to feed starving children or something – so he may have committed the crime, but the sentence was ridiculously harsh).

    The “wanderer” story can also take on a much different form – rather than “fleeing persecution”, there is the “divine intervention” wanderer. “Mythological stories” abound – stories of “pagan gods” taking human form and/or interacting with humans in the form of a “old wanderer” cross the centuries.

    In the western world, Knights going out “questing” always has that implication of “the hand of God” directing events. Here in the U.S. most “B westerns” or stories like “Hopalong Cassidy” and/or the “Lone Ranger” series also fit the “general” form with the major exception being that the “hero” is “wandering” with a side-kick/help in some form.

    SO in the second form the hero isn’t a “fugitive” as much as “on a mission” (but “if you have a problem, no one else can help, and you can find them, maybe you can hire” …. and/or “The Equalizer” is on, what, its third incarnation?)

    Anyway, there is still nothing new under the sun. Just for fun we can consider the book of “Genesis” – where we have fugitives and wanderers aplenty. Just a quick flyby – starting with that snake and apple, then Cain kills Abel and becomes a restless wanderer (4:12), Abram is told to “go” so he “went” (12:4), Jacob’s trials and tribulations rival Odysseus. Then the story of Joseph’s time as a “wanderer” finishes up the book.

    Always fun to point out is that the most important “person” in the Bible makes an appearance in Genesis 37 – the chapter begins with “Joseph’s dreams” and ends with him being sold into slavery.

    Notice in verses 14-18 that Joseph is sent to find his brothers. When he arrives at where he thought he would find his brothers, they have moved on. In verse 15, an unnamed man finds his “wandering in the fields” and tells Joseph where his brothers went.

    SO (arguably, with tongue in cheek) the most important “person” in the Bible is that unnamed individual – BECAUSE he represents God intervening in human events. i.e. The story could easily be told without the brief interlude in Shechem, but the “unnamed stranger” giving guidance when needed (probably) illustrates how God chooses to work though human beings (most of the time).

    Just in the nick of time …
    Of course it is just good story telling to “start with the conflict” in some form – so first we find out that the poor widow is gonna lose her farm because someone lost/stole the deed THEN Hopalong Cassidy rides into town (for some contrived reason), sorts things out and then has to leave again (for some equally contrived reason – remember if Hoppy marries the poor widow woman, settles down and raises a family it is harder for him to run around having adventures – hey, sometimes they are just stories with no deeper meaning – maybe entertaining, but no hidden meaning 😉 )

    Samurai Jack (cable tv show, originally 2001-2004) is another great example of the “wanderer as divine agent” – umm, of course the start of out each show reminds viewers that the Samurai is fighting a great evil, so they weren’t being subtle – but if you are writing episodic programming, you can’t assume the audience knows the backstory. Telling them the backstory in the intro is usually a good idea

    ANWAY Samurai Jack (episode 27 season 3 maybe – I had to check) was on during my “exercise time.” Ok, time travelling Samurai, no problem. “shape-shifting Master of Darkness, unleashed an unspeakable evil”, got it. Then Jack gets turned into a chicken by a disgruntled wandering wizard – still, ok. BUT I found myself wondering what happened to Jack’s sword/clothes when he was changed into a chicken. At the end of the episode they reappear when Jack is restored to human form – I mean c’mon man 😉

    No, that wasn’t the first episode of Samurai Jack I’d seen – but it did indirectly lead me to this rant …

    Woody Allen/Citizen Kane/Arthur/MOVIES
    I listened to the “Woody Allen” stand-up years recording – worth pointing out that “Woody Allen” human being isn’t the same as “Woody Allen” writer/entertainer. Most of the material was directed at his personal foibles – at the time his style was “new” but it has become a standard “stand-up” approach.

    Mr. Allen admits that he never intended to do stand-up for a long time. He didn’t like the long hours and travelling – so he (probably) ended his stand-up “career” as soon as possible.

    His time doing stand-up certainly made him a better writer, but he just didn’t enjoy the “process of stand-up.” Obviously there are comedians that love performing in front of a crowd, love the life style etc., and do it for years and years. So his career is another good example of “know yourself”

    It is the 80th anniversary of “Citizen Kane” – the powers that be are giving it one of those “special release limited engagement” showings in movie theaters near the end of September – I think it is a Sunday, I might go – deciding factor will be what NFL games are on 😉

    I don’t think Citizen Kane is one of those “must see on the big screen” movies – but I’ve never seen it on the big screen. I’ve watched it on the ‘small screen’ multiple times. Once you get past the hoopla generated by English majors and film critiques that think it is the greatest movie ever made – it is a very good movie.

    yes, it is a roman a clef of sorts about William Randolph Hearst (who was a extremely wealthy newspaper/businessman/politician – world famous at the time) – but after 80 years the scandal aspect might finally be of “minimal importance.”

    I ended up watching “Arthur” (1981) for the first time in “forever” (certainly the first time this millennium – so maybe 25-30 years between viewings). The movie is still “cute” – a great example of 1980’s movie making.

    For the record: I did notice some different aspects of the movie – John Gielgud’s performance is even better than I remember (he won an Oscar for best supporting actor for his role as Hobson). The theme song also won an Oscar – and yes, that song has been in my “music library” forever.

    What jumped out at me watching it this time is how much “Arthur” and “Linda” work together. Yes it is in the script, but it comes across as Arthur is always looking for people to “play along” with him, and no one does – UNTIL he meets Linda (well, Hobson ‘plays along’ as well but very much in a parent/child kind of way).

    fwiw: We can compare/contrast Citizen Kane and Arthur – Charles Foster Kane inherits a huge fortune and tries to use it to force other people into roles/situations those people don’t really want, while Arthur Bach has been manipulated into a position where he has to do something he doesn’t really want to inherit a fortune.

    MEANWHILE – both characters are motivated by loneliness. It is MUCH easier to like Arthur Bach than Charles Kane, but they both end up as sympathetic characters (and “Rosebud” is his sled – representing his “lost childhood” or something)

    Since I’ve been doing a little ‘study of movie comedy’ I’ll also point out that ‘Arthur’ borrows from Charlie Chaplin and the Marx Brothers in spirit if not directly stealing material. It is hard to imagine another actor playing Arthur Bach. Dudley Moore received a “Best Actor” Oscar Nomination – it is VERY rare for a comedian to get nominated for Best Actor – Henry Fonda won for “On Golden Pond.”

    I didn’t see the 2011 remake – so I won’t voice any opinion on that movie. The 1981 original was #53 on the AFI’s 100 years 100 laughs list (which is 10+ years old in 2021).

    My personal list of “favorite comedies” (no particular order) would have a lot of Mel Brooks movies – Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, The Producers (1967). Steve Martin – The Jerk, Roxanne, Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid. Coen Brothers movies – Big Lebowski, O Brother Where Art Thou, Hail Ceasar, and then Airplane! (1980) and (after watching it again) Arthur …

  • Eternity is a long time …

    Woody Allen started out “doing stand-up” in the 1960’s. (e.g. Spotify has “Woody Allen – The Stand Up Years Years 1964-1968”). I would have to re-listen to some of his stuff to give any sort of critique – BUT the fact that the “The Stand Up Years” was released in 2015 implies SOMETHING positive.

    ANYWAY – one of Mr Allen’s famous lines was:

    Eternity is a long time, especially near the end.

    Woody Allen

    Humor rarely translates well between generation. Artist/art/audience are all shaped by the times in which they live – and therefore the “generic societal sense of humor” obviously shifts over time.

    Is Woody Allen’s stand up act still “funny” today – yes. Was it (probably) considered MUCH funnier in the 1960 – also yes. (btw: hoopladigital has the album – I’ll listen to it later 😉 )

    It isn’t just that the material is “older” as much as “it was written at a specific point in time to be delivered at a certain point in time to an audience”

    Humor
    “Humor” may be eternal – BUT audience tastes change. What was commercially successful “back then” might not be successful “now” – but of course there is still nothing new under the sun (observed from a distance, over a long enough period of time – there are probably “cycles of humor” – but that is a different post)

    Obviously what we think is “funny” tends to fall into the “can’t argue with taste” category – but is also influenced by time/place/audience.

    Meanwhile back at the ranch …
    Is there a “universal” sense of humor? Well, maybe. We would probably have to venture into abstractions and pointless generalities but something that EVERYONE would think is “equally funny” is gonna be hard to find – simply because we aren’t all the same.

    Marvel has a new movie coming out (in November 2021) called “The Eternals.” I’m sure it will be entertaining, but the story is VERY old. Of course it should be remembered that the purpose of the movie is to entertain and “make $$” – and it will probably do both.

    Anyway – the “very old” part touches on issues worthy of profound thought and/or deep analysis – which I won’t go into now.

    HOWEVER – from a “storytelling” point of view, if you have “all powerful eternal beings” in the “Marvel Cinematic Universe” (MCU) the question they have to address is “why they let bad things happen.” From the trailer it looks like they are going for the generic “we are not allowed to interfere with mortal history” thing – which again, is a storytelling tool as much as anything.

    If you are going to have “supremely strong” heroes then to tell an interesting story, you also need “supremely strong” villains. e.g. if the “hero” is all powerful, then the outcome is never in question and there is no real “conflict” which means there is no real “story.”

    This is why “Greek heroes” tended to have “tragic flaws.” If memory serves the ancient Greek concept of “gods” was that they were just like humans, but they lived forever. Then if you live forever, you have no real motivation to seek “glory” or accomplishments – i.e. who cares if anyone “mortal” remembers you, they are gonna die while you continue on …

    So in the MCU – Thanos snapping his fingers and wiping out half of existence is pointless – eventually the population would recover, and if you are “eternal”, well even Thanos would eventually die (in the MCU) and you would continue – so “no problem”.

    Again, from a “storytelling” point of view – stories about “happy people never having any problems” simply aren’t interesting.

    fwiw This is a big reason why “Superman” has been hard for DC to “do right” in recent years.

    Golden Age Comics
    The “golden age Superman” (in comics) from 1938 to 1986 illustrates all of the above storytelling problems. Of course at the start “Superman” wasn’t really “Superman.” Then as his powers grew, they also needed to introduce “weaknesses” in the form of the many flavors of Kryptonite.

    To be clear I’m not criticizing “Superman” – just pointing out the problem. If you have seen the old “Super Friends” from 1973 – sure, the intended audience was “8 to 10 year olds” – but when Superman shows up, it tends to end the episode (in a very deus ex machina kind of way).

    From a pop-culture point of view. Part of the problem with Superman and Batman was that the “audience” grew-up. If you read those comics from the 1950’s and 60’s there are a lot of classic stories – but they don’t spend a lot of time dealing with “real world problems.”

    Contrast that with Marvel’s “Spider-Man” (first issue 1962) – where poor Aunt May seemed to always be on the verge of death, and the bills were piling up, so Peter Parker had to get a job, and deal with going to school, and worry about his girlfriend, etc.

    (of course in true “over reaction” fashion – DC has almost jumped into the other ditch in recent years – but that isn’t important now)

    SO they either have to settle on telling almost exactly the same story over and over – or they need to invent weaknesses for Superman, and introduce “worthy opponents” (and a discussion on how “Lex Luthor” has changed from “mad scientist” to “evil businessman” to “Machiavellian politician” is another subject)

    By 1986 the problem facing DC was declining comic sales and so the “future of Superman” meeting (probably) went something like “well, we can invent another form of kyptonite or we can reboot the franchise and make Superman less powerful.” (fwiw: I thought the “reboot” went well – but then they “killed” Superman in 1992 … it must be a tough job 😉 )

    I’ll also point out that “golden age Superman” was basically a (very) secularized version of a protestant Christianity concept of the Divine.

    King David the psalmist
    Yes, I could spend some time supporting that last statement – but it is one of those things that “once you’ve been told” tends to be obvious. Of course if you passionately disagree with me on the subject – I could always be wrong … (and to be clear I’m NOT saying “Superman” is allegorical in a larger sense)

    My point (if I had one) is that one of the things that distinguishes “humanity” from other mammals is the ability to conceive of “eternity” in some limited fashion. King David and Psalm 8 comes to mind.

    Particularly the “What is man that You are mindful of him,” part (first half of Psalm 8:4). Which is the same question “The Eternals” has to deal with at the beginning …

    (btw: yes, of course your dog/cat/beloved pet loves you and probably has a sense of humor, as well as intelligence – but also isn’t terribly worried about what will happen when they die. The fact that animals can be completely in “the present” and love unconditionally is part of the appeal of having a “pet”)

    SO “The Eternals” will be asking the same question in the form of a “modern CGI movie.” (which I will probably see on the first weekend it is out – as always, I go to the movies primarily to be entertained – if the movie makes me “think” a little without being pretentious, that is fine …)