Difficult People: Are You One of Them?

Difficult PeopleI’m not the easiest person to get along with. But I don’t consider myself a jerk. I’m not one of the difficult people. I don’t try to be difficult. But like most people, I have bad days; I take things the wrong way; I lash out. The problem I find is that when I’m having an argument with another person, I don’t know whose being the jerk. In most cases, there’s blame on both sides. But that in itself is something I’ve learned about such encounters. It’s a very good sign if you can see that you are at least partly to blame.

What I’ve noticed is true of the most difficult people — the ones who are forever getting into altercations — is that they think the world is against them. According to them, just about everyone in their lives are difficult. For a normal person, this should set off alarm bells. There really are only two possible explanations. The first is that you choose really bad people to hang around. For example, suppose you are a hate radio addict, it would be stupid to live in Berkeley. You would find a lot of people who think very different than you do. If that’s the kind of conflict that you like, have at it. But don’t be surprised that your relationships are difficult.

Difficult People Find Others “Difficult”

The most common issue, however, is that people find others difficult because they demand that everyone act just the way that they want. If that’s the case, you are going to find people “difficult” but the real problem is that you are difficult. They are just the way they are. So regardless whether you have decided to surround yourself with people who are naturally at odds with you and your worldview, or you require that everyone agree with you and do things your way, the problem is you not the world.

Difficult people have found a loophole in civilization. They’ve realized that most people are just too nice to tell them to shut up and mind their own business.

The vast majority of my relationships are extremely positive. But when I get into a fight with someone, I’m very concerned that I’m in the wrong. And even when I don’t think I’m in the wrong, I’m willing to take blame and get back to work. Life’s too short. But if the other person involved is not interested in accepting olive branches — indeed, if they use the olive branches to expand the conflict, then I know the problem is not me. I’m just dealing with a difficult person — a jerk.

I’m not sure what the difficult person gets out of being a jerk. But I can relate what I think is a telling experience. I had just spent half a day working with a difficult person and was told various things about how I should live my life. It wasn’t just advice of course, it was peppered with claims that I was an idiot and didn’t know what I was talking about. Later, I was going to dinner with this difficult person, and we ran into someone they knew. And I stood there for a good 15 minutes as this poor man was told exactly the same things I had been told with only slightly fewer insults. I wanted to say, “I’ve heard this lecture; could you give it on your own time?”

Difficult people have found a loophole in civilization. They’ve realized that most people are just too nice to tell them to shut up and mind their own business. But when someone does get the point of not being able to take it, that’s when the difficult person gets their greatest victory: oh, how wronged they’ve been by all the difficult people in the world!

The only way that you can know if you are a difficult person is to look out at the world and see what it thinks. I don’t think I’m a difficult person because the only person I know who thinks I’m difficult is widely considered one of the most difficult people working in their industry. The people who work with me have all kinds of pejoratives to describe me — but mostly just “weird.” But “jerk” is not one of them. Nor is “cruel.” But the real question is not figuring out if you are a difficult person; the real question is how you can avoid them.

Morning Music: Disco Inferno by The Trammps

Disco Inferno - The TrammpsThe phrase “Burn, baby! Burn!” has been associated with the 1965 Watts Riots. As a result, I’ve always found it fascinating that it would find its way into The Trammps’ mega-hit “Disco Inferno.” It is, I suppose, what Thomas Frank wrote about in his first book, The Conquest of Cool: Business Culture, Counterculture, and the Rise of Hip Consumerism. It isn’t that those ad men were just trying to co-opt what was cool. It was what they thought was cool and they were simply using it.

It’s certainly the case that the songwriters, Leroy Green and Ron Kersey, were not making a political statement. The song came from a scene in The Towering Inferno, where a disco is burned down. “Disco Inferno” is pure fun, the way that the very best Disco music was. But it must certainly be that the writers had the phrase in their mind because they had heard it associated with the Watts Riots. And there is something kind of sad that just one decade after a riot that took the lives of 34 people should be so vague that the phrase could be co-opted to mean nothing more than burning up the dance floor.

But that’s the nature of our modern society. The Watts Riots started over the police stopping an African American man. The reasonableness of the whole thing is not the question, however. The issue is that we had then, as we have today, a racist system. People denied justice will hold in their resentment and anger for only so long. And to nitpick over the exact timing or cause of their anger is to miss the whole point.

Disco Inferno: Burn That Mother Down

When I see white people like those who took over the Malheur wildlife sanctuary, it makes me think of all the people who have real grievances. Throughout its brief history, the Black Lives Matter movement has been nitpicked to death. A twelve year old African American boy with a toy gun is driven up on and murdered by police within seconds. But when armed white men take over a public building because some rich people are being held accountable for their acts of arson, we get a month-long negotiation to see that no one is harmed. Yet it is the Black Lives Matter protesters who are condemned because they aren’t doing it right. They aren’t courteous enough. They don’t wait their turn. They somehow never know the exact right words that would make their problems all just go away.

African Americans, like all minority groups, are just supposed to shut up — unless they are providing us with entertainment as delightful as “Disco Inferno.”

Anniversary Post: Soviet Union’s Cult of Personality

Joseph Stalin - Cult of PersonalityOn this day in 1956, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev gave a speech to party insiders, “On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences.” It was basically an attack on former Premier Joseph Stalin. You can’t read about it without being told that it was all part of Khrushchev’s efforts to consolidate his power against the remaining Stalin loyalists. And while that was certainly the case, the implication is always that the Soviet leaders had ulterior motives but somehow here in America we are pure as the driven snow.

I guess it is just when I grew up and the fact that it was in a conservative household that I find so sad our tendency to trivialize the government of the Soviet Union. It isn’t that I have a all that much respect for it. But it was complicated. My father liked to point out that although they had elections in the Soviet Union, they had only one political party. While that was largely true, there were various factions of the party. And I really can’t say that there was less diversity within the Communist Party of the Soviet Union than there has been between the Democratic and Republican Parties.

It is certainly the case that what Khrushchev said in “On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences” was widely shared. They knew they had a major problem on their hands when Stalin was in power. He was exactly the kind of autocrat that the communists hated in the fascist leaders. The truth was that Stalin greatly admired Hitler until the Nazi leader stabbed him in the back. (This was a major mistake; the Nazis probably would have survived World War II if they had managed to keep the Soviet Union out of it.)

Whose Cult of Personality Is Worse?

The Soviet Union changed over time. And it eventually allowed a man as liberal as Mikhail Gorbachev to rule it. Can you imagine the United States ever electing a leader that would admit to our major errors? As it is, even Bernie Sanders, a man who is hardly a radical, has been vilified by a whole industry of opinion leaders who supposedly represent the left of politics.

Also on this day in 1991, the Warsaw Pact was disbanded. Yet NATO continues on. To counter what? Wasn’t the fall of communism the time when the west should have most firmly embraced the United Nations? But instead of using the event to make a better world, the United States used it to consolidate its power. We don’t have a cult of personality here; we have a cult of “exceptionalism.” And it is dangerous. Donald Trump could become our next president. And there are a lot of people in this country who are thrilled at the idea of a cult of personality. Even when it requires the personality of Vladimir Putin.

God, Ice Cream, and Publishing Schedules

God and Ice Cream ConeAs you have no doubt noticed, the publishing schedule around here has gotten a bit less dependable. Thus far, all that has been affected has been the afternoon article. But this may just be the beginning. I’m trying to be solid with the anniversary and music posts. I’ve managed to get the last couple of 11:05 publications up just because I happened to be able to. They weren’t done the day before as used to be the case. Now everything just gets jammed into the little bit of time that I manage between other things I’m working on.

Currently, I’m managing writers, writing my own freelance stuff, rewriting a book for publication, and taking frequent breaks to scream into a pillow. It’s madness. I don’t deal well with this level of stress. And I do believe that some day soon they are going to have to take me away to a quiet place where the most upsetting thing will be sparrows chirping in the morning. And even that may be a bit too much to take.

So I’m thinking I’ll let the days float. What is there to talk about anyway? Doing the anniversary posts are interesting because they constantly remind me that nothing much has changed. And the morning music posts remind me that perhaps not everything in the world is terrible.

God and Ice Cream

It reminds me of some philosopher I was reading who was talking about the nature of God. Like a lot of people, he was interested in theodicy and why God allows evil in the world. But he was quick to note that there isn’t just evil in the world. He specifically mentioned ice cream. If God were evil, would it actually allow anything as wonderful as ice cream? I forget where he came down on the issue.

To me it is clear enough. The way I see God is a given. God is just a word that explains why things exist. The Bible claims, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” It does show how God is just a linguistic trick that allows us to talk about the ineffable. But whatever you want to think about God, you can’t possibly think that it is something that cares about us in the same way that a mother cares about her child. If there is such a thing as God’s love, it is only in the sense that to exist is a favor. Regardless of how horrible we may perceive existence, at least we get to perceive it. Most things don’t get that gift.

Personally, I don’t buy that. There is life and there is not life. Life is nothing but a chemical process. Our consciousness nothing but trick. And as much as we like to think of ourselves as independent organisms — universes in ourselves — it sucks to perceive ourselves in such a way that we find painful. And in that context, God is an utterly useless concept. There is good and evil in the world simply because there is good and evil in our conception of the universe.

William Lane Craig is one of the people who has decided that my way of thinking is wrong: God defines good. And that means that Craig has defined good and evil out of existence in the context of our consciousness. But I think Craig is a huge liar. He’s lying to himself in his zeal to believe a truly ridiculous dogma. He must know, once you peel back the barriers he’s built to protect God, that we are all alone and that we have no clue why some things give us pain and others give us joy. There is no reason that humans will ever be able to understand why they can be licking a delicious ice cream cone just as someone stabs us through the kidney.

So we go from the ontological “Why does anything exist?!” to the Schopenhauerian “Why continue on within our own little universes?!” And the answer to both questions is the same: we don’t know. So we muddle on. And that is what I will continue to do: muddle on with Frankly Curious. At this point, it is the closest thing I have to a social life, so I hope that I can keep you all interested enough to keep stopping by. Hopefully, for the regular readers, it comes down more on the ice cream side of the universe than the knife through the kidney side of things.

What’s your favorite flavor of ice cream?

All Bad Options for GOP Presidential Nominee

Donald TrumpTrump won the Nevada caucuses handily. He got 46% of the vote with Rubio and Cruz running far behind with 24% and 21%. Carson and Kasich had 5% and 4%. And that’s all there is in the field. Now I know the conventional wisdom. Carson will drop out and give his votes to Cruz and Kasich will drop out and give his votes to Rubio. I don’t think that’s so clear, but even if true, all that would have done would have made Rubio and Cruz closer to each other and still left them far behind Trump in the fight to be the Republican presidential nominee.

The last great hope of the Republican establishment is that Trump has a ceiling and what needs to happen is for this race to get down to a one on one fight between Trump and literally anyone else and then we will see Trump’s downfall. But after one bit and another of establishment conventional wisdom has shown to be wrong, why do we believe this? Anyway, given that Rubio and Cruz seem to be running neck and neck, why would one of them drop out? But then there is the very important question of who drops out in the bid to be the presidential nominee.

The establishment is not clear about who they hate more: Trump or Cruz. So they are hoping that Cruz will drop out. According to what is looking more and more like simple wishful thinking, the presidential nominee will then be Rubio. But I see no reason why Cruz would drop out given that he has scads of money and and army of very committed volunteers. But if he drops out, his voters are not going to jump on the Good Ship Rubio. The very best the establishment could hope for would be that Rubio would get half of Cruz’s votes. Let’s look at that for a moment.

Forget Nevada, where Trump likely did better than he normally would. But if we did take it as typical, the Republican primary is over and Trump is the Republican presidential nominee. But look back to South Carolina, which gives Rubio a much better chance. Trump got 32.5% of the vote, and Rubio got 22.5%. Cruz got 22.3% of the vote. If Trump and Rubio split that, Trump would have 43.6% and Rubio would have 33.6. Even if you gave Rubio all of Bush’s and Kashic’s votes and gave Trump Carson’s vote, Trump would squeeze out a victory with 50.8% of the vote.

Presidential Nominee Marco RubioAnd I think I’m being way too generous to Rubio. I doubt there is much of an appetite on the part of Cruz voters for Rubio. If Hillary Clinton has a problem in terms of seeming authentic, Rubio has the problem in spades. But he’s coming at it from a position of weakness. That’s why I think it is much more likely that the Republican establishment would say that they can better live with a Cruz candidacy than a Trump one, and force Rubio out of the race. That, at least, seems like a plausible way to defeat Trump. Because we all know that Rubio will do whatever the establishment tells him to.

But this is what you get when a party has cobbled a coalition based upon lies. Trump has been brilliant in focusing in on what most motivates Republican voters: fear and anger. The establishment claims that they don’t like Trump because he’s a loose cannon. They like Rubio because they know that he will do as he is told. Well, that’s clear enough to me. And it’s clear enough to Republican voters. And that doesn’t make him very appealing as the party’s presidential nominee.

Each GOP Presidential Nominee Would Be Bad

There is something deeper, however. I wrote about this months ago: the real concern is that if Trump is the Republican presidential nominee, he won’t win in the general election. The main thing that the Republican establishment cares about is winning. But at this point, Donald Trump seems to be their best chance of winning. I can at least see him making a run for it against Clinton. Rubio is a joke. Imagine that there is a terrorist attack some time before the election, are the voters going to look to Rubio and think, “He’ll protect us!” The very idea is laughable. Rubio is not substantially more impressive as a candidate than Sarah Palin.

I hope that the Republican establishment gets what it wants and Marco Rubio is their presidential nominee. I will look forward to watching Clinton eating him alive and then cleaning her teeth with one of his smaller rib bones. But it looks like it is going to be Trump. Regardless, the Republicans are screwed. They can get a presidential candidate that they and most other people hate (Cruz), a candidate who is unpredictable (Trump), or their own inside man with all the gravitas of Mort in Madagascar.

Morning Music: Robert Johnson and the Devil

Robert Johnson: The Complete RecordingsI’ve told you all the story of the barber who corrected me when I mentioned that legend that Robert Johnson met the Devil at the crossroads and sold his soul to the devil for his musical skills. I thought today, I would go over very briefly why it is that the story is more associated with Robert Johnson, even though maybe it was first told about Tommy Johnson.

Really, it comes down to two songs. The first is “Cross Road Blues,” which really doesn’t have anything to do with the Devil. The second is “Me and the Devil Blues.” Now at least it has to do with the Devil. But it is just about the Devil who has come to take him away. Anyway, I’ve put the two songs together as a playlist. Like all Robert Johnson songs, they are short. They are worth listening to if only as a nice introduction to the very peak of Mississippi Delta Blues.

The Satanic Verses and the $3 Million Bounty

The Satanic VersesOn this day in 1989, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran offered a $3 million bounty for the death of Salman Rushdie. This followed ten days after the fatwa against him for writing The Satanic Verses. This was a stupid thing to do. And maybe if Khomeini, who I generally think of as having been a pretty smart guy, had been younger, he wouldn’t have done it. But he was almost 90 years old, and only months from death.

We accept that people are stupid. I see it all the time. Hardly a day goes by when someone doesn’t tell me about some minor thing that they are outraged about. But leaders are supposed to be educated and thoughtful. Even if you are a fundamentalist, you need to pick your battles. At a time when Iran should have been trying to integrate itself with the rest of the world, the fatwa just made Iran seem like a thuggish state. The fatwa went along with a one million dollar bounty for Rushdie’s murder. And then Khomeini ups it to $3 million? It’s just pathetic.

The Satanic Verses Wouldn’t Have Been a Hit

At that point, Salman Rushdie was a celebrated writer. He had won the Booker Prize. But he was hardly JK Rowling. The fatwa made Rushdie’s career. And The Satanic Verses would have continued in that tradition. Most people today would not have ever heard of Salman Rushdie nor The Satanic Verses had it not been for Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s ridiculous assassination contract.

Obviously, I’m not talking about the immorality of calling for murder because someone writes a book you don’t like. I don’t think we need to discuss that. Everyone around here agrees on that point. And I seriously doubt that Khomeini read the book, anyway. And I doubt anyone important in the fatwa process had read the book. Yet Iran has now renewed the bounty for the outrage of The Satanic Verses. My understanding is that in modern Iran, everyone wants to grab onto the mantle of Khomeini and so that’s what this is all about. Perhaps the most stupid thing the man ever did in his life, when his mind feeble, and they are still chasing it as though he were God.

I feel sorry for Salman Rushdie. But I feel more sorry for the Iranian people, who have been so ineptly ruled both before and after Khomeini. And this business about publicly calling for the murder over The Satanic Verses is the best encapsulation of this that there is.

Norms Not Laws Are What Matter

Antonin Scalia - Norms Not LawsJonathan Chait wrote what is probably the best discussion of what the death of Antonin Scalia really means, Will the Supreme Court Just Disappear? The point is that the Supreme Court has power because we all accept that it has power. This is the truth of any kind of political power. It’s like money: a shared delusion. As Chait noted, “While the Republican blockade may lack any ­precedent, it, too, is probably well within the law.” It isn’t a matter of law. The Constitution is pretty vague about it. What really matters are norms.

I’ve discussed the broader issue here many times. A couple of years ago, I wrote, Boehner’s Paradox of Power. There I discussed how John Boehner only had power as Speaker of the House as long as he didn’t use it. The moment he actually managed the House as he thought was right, he would be thrown out. And this is a situation that supposedly powerful people have always faced. Sure, Boehner could in theory have allowed the Debt Ceiling to be raised, but he couldn’t do it practically, so his power was thus theoretical and not practical.

Look at my discussion of Marbury v Madison. That was the case where the Supreme Court proclaimed itself as the institution that defined what the Constitution meant. Regardless of that, it was the result of the Court avoiding a confrontation with the executive branch where it would be shown to be powerless. And the truth was then as it still is that the Court has no way to enforce its decisions. It is only because the rest of the nation abides by the norm that the Supreme Court defines what the law is. Norms are a very powerful thing.

A divided Court will mean that the law of the land will depend upon where you live. In a sense, it will be the Confederates getting what they wanted… Antonin Scalia’s death could succeed where the treason of Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee failed.

Think about it on the microscale. I think the vast majority of people are like me. I wouldn’t break into my next door neighbor’s house. And the reason is because I know it is wrong. My reason is not that I will get caught and go to jail. And this is the reason society is able to get along. We don’t need to resolve every issue by what the law says. We are socialized. We know the way that people are supposed to behave and that is how we behave.

This is also true of institutions. This is the basis of Kissinger on Revolutionary Power. They do not abide by norms because they see the system itself as invalid. And this is what we’ve seen with the Republicans over the past four decades — but most especially since Obama took office. There is no consideration for the way that things have been done in the past. If there is no legal document that says it cannot be done, the Republicans will do it if it is to their advantage.

Changing Norms for Not Replacing Scalia

Right now, the Republicans are making the argument that the president should not be allowed to appoint a new justice in his last year in office. This is clearly just an ad hoc norm they’ve devised that has no precedent. And if Scalia had died at the beginning of 2013 (the first year of Obama’s second term), they would have come up with a different ad hoc reason for why they should have filibustered for the next two years and then refused to allow any other appointment during the next two. And if Clinton is president next year, they will come up with another reason why it simply isn’t acceptable for a Democratic president to appoint a replacement to Scalia.

It is this total lack of respect for norms that most concerns me about the United States as a going concern. It would have been different in the 1960s, because everyone would be getting pretty much the same news. But roughly half the nation will be hearing nothing but apologetics about how whatever new norm the Republicans are destroying is totally right and just. And if the new norm is that presidents don’t get to place justices on the Supreme Court, why even accept the power of the Supreme Court? It is just one of our norms after all.

As Ian Millhiser pointed out in his discussion of the effects of Scalia’s death, a divided Court will mean that the law of the land will depend upon where you live. In a sense, it will be the Confederates getting what they wanted. All those nutcases who want to secede from the Union will get what they’ve so long wanted: the Dis-United States of America. They always knew they weren’t going to control New York and California, just as they knew they wouldn’t control France or Japan. But those glorious states under the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will be able to return to the “true” America of the 1830.

Antonin Scalia’s death could succeed where the treason of Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee failed.

Leif Skoogfors and Photography Copyright

Oscar Romero by Leif SkoogforsAs you all know, I’ve gotten serious about image copyright around here over the last nine months or so. The truth is that I always thought that I could use any image on Wikipedia because they were free and that was that. Well, that was not that. Most of the images on Wikipedia at least require attribution. And a large number of them are Fair Use, which is a whole legal can of worms.

I got a good and fast introduction when I started working for Quality Nonsense. It’s not that anyone took me aside. But I found myself editing a bunch of articles on copyright and plagiarism. It made me paranoid. And then, I got put in charge of finding images for our biggest website Who Is Hosting This? So getting serious about the use of images was easy enough. Just the same, with over 7,000 articles on Frankly Curious, I haven’t been able to go back and fix my previous problems.

It’s easy to be casual about image copyright when you are running a tiny blog that no one reads. But Frankly Curious has become big enough that people start to notice. And what’s more, I’ve decided that I would like to make the blog as professional as possible with a set publishing schedule and my prohibition against coarse language in articles. But until you reach that point, a blog is like a collage that you put together during the commercial breaks of Dancing With the Stars — something you do without the thought that what you are doing is going anywhere. It’s just for fun or your own self-actualization.

Leif Skoogfors

Well, this morning, I got an email message from Leif Skoogfors. He had noticed that I was using the image above in an article, Religion Is Politics. I had provided no attribution, as was my habit in those days. He was extremely nice about it and only asked for credit, which I gladly provided on the article and another where I had used the image, 35 Years Without Óscar Romero.

Leif Skoogfors is more or less the romantic archetype of a photographer. I know a lot of photographers. I greatly admire the visual arts, although I have no talent for it. But most of the people I know work in studios or forests. And that’s great! But Skoogfors was working in El Salvador in the late 1970s! Looking over his career, he seems to have gone wherever he had a good chance of being killed.

An eight year old child of Fatah Jordan, 1969

Of course, it isn’t just the romantic aspect of the photographer throwing himself in harm’s way to get the shot. Much of Leif Skoogfors’ work is stunning. Take, for example, Eight Year-Old Child of Fatah. It was taken in 1969 at the Baka refugee camp in Jordan. You can see men marching in the background and some buildings and other structures. If there were no people in the photo, it would be a fine bit of nature photography. I think that’s an olive grove in the upper right hand corner. But instead, we focus on this child, holding a machine gun and wearing… sneakers. When the picture was taken, I was 4 years old. My life was utterly different. It’s hard to imagine that the boy in the picture is still alive. What a sick and arbitrary world we live in.

Check out Leif Skoogfors’ other work. He does have a great eye and documented some of the most important things that happened in the world over the last fifty years. He is certainly a man who should be acknowledged. And compensated.

Afterword

I received a followup email message from Leif Skoogfors. Part of the text above was changed based upon a correction he alerted me to. Here is part of the email, that adds a little more to the story of that photo:

The guide translator who showed me around was thoughtful and pulled the loaded drum magazine out of the weapon and replaced it with an empty one, thinking that the boy might get nervous and pull the trigger.

It was a few years after I’d been there that I realized the very nice “freelance journalist” in Cairo who’d arranged the introduction to Al-Fatah for me was with the CIA. Perhaps the first time I’d run into one of those guys…

I appreciate the article on copyright. Many folks have pointed out, if artists don’t get paid for their work, how can they continue to create. When I ran an image search on the Oscar Romero photograph, over 400 sites showed up. Only 9 were licensed.

Yes, I feel sorry being in that list of 400. But I’m glad to get the chance to highlight the work of Mr Skoogfors.

Morning Music: Pacing the Cage

Charity of Night - Pacing the CageMemory is a hard thing. You never know if its real. Or I don’t anyway. It seems that most people I know think their memories are video files stored on a micro-SD card in their brains. To me, they are more like creations of random event generators that our consciousness tricks us into thinking are real. Still, I have this memory of being at the San Francisco Zoo when I was perhaps six years old. And there was this panther in a small enclosure, walking back and forth — pacing the cage.

The third song of Bruce Cockburn’s album The Charity of Night was “Pacing the Cage.” I asked him once about the song — or I reflected on it. Regardless, he said it was about feeling trapped. I hated to hear that because its such a trivialization of the song and the metaphor. As I remember back to that panther, it wasn’t feeling trapped or looking for a way out. It had more been driven mad by living a life it could not understand. And Cockburn knows that. The song starts off:

Sunset is an angel weeping
Holding out a bloody sword
No matter how I squint I cannot
Make out what it’s pointing toward

If he’s trapped, it’s by his own mind. He’s lost. You don’t have to be confined to be at a loss of the way forward. In fact, not being confined can be the problem. And there is a pointlessness of life that causes all human activity to be nothing more than pacing the cage. In such circumstances, death is a release. Because your other choices are to pace inside the cage or pace outside the cage. There is the appearance of freedom only — no actual freedom. Until you die, you will find yourself pacing the cage.

Anniversary Post: the Battle of the Alamo

The AlamoOn this day in 1836, the Battle of the Alamo started. I remember visiting it when I was a kid. But I have no idea where. They seem to move the damned thing around all the time. But what’s amazing about it is that it’s this big deal in the mythology of America. But there are a few problems with it. First, it was part of the Texas Revolution. It wasn’t part of the United States. And the people of Texas were even worse than than they are now. The other thing that is remarkable about it is that the Texans lost the battle.

Now, I understood that when I was a kid. But I had this idea that the Texans were totally outnumbered. Really, I remember it being presented as a couple hundred Texans against a hundred thousand Mexicans. Hooray! Ain’t the white man great! But that wasn’t the case at all. The Texans were a couple hundred strong, and they were inside the Alamo. They had the advantage. They were under siege by less than two thousand Mexicans. In the end, the Mexicans had about double the casualties as the Texans. Given the circumstances, I would say that the Mexicans did pretty well. If I were a Texan, I’d try to brush this historical event under the carpet.

But no. Everything is bigger in Texas, and nowhere is that as true as in its egos. Oh, but they fought to the death! That’s one of the great lies of manliness. There is nothing noble about fighting to the death unless you are doing it to protect others. If you are suicidal, then just get on with it. But don’t expect the rest of us to hold you up as some kind of a hero. Regardless, I’ve come to see pretty much all armed conflicts as a battle between two powerful groups over who will be the most powerful. The rest of us just want to be left out of it.

But I am pleased that Sam Houston survived and was able to keep all his slaves.

Expertise in One Thing Does Not a Manager Make

Management ExpertiseAt my day job, they love me. After five years of writing Frankly Curious at a very intense level, I did learn a lot about professional writing. That’s something that people don’t usually understand: being a professional writer doesn’t mean you are necessarily all that good in what people think of as writing. But it does mean you have expertise in certain aspects of content creation. For example, you could tell me to write a thousand words about any subject at all, and I would have a publishable article for you within about four hours. I’m kind of like a robot. They can plug me into any assignment and it will get done.

To give you an example, back in late December, I had to write an article about OAuth. I had no idea what it was, but I did the research, wrote the article, and it was published. By that point, I was both writer and editor, so it wasn’t even much checked by my main supervisor (if that’s the right word). But by the end of January, I couldn’t even remember what OAuth was. I remembered having written an article about it, but I couldn’t tell you want it was. So I went back and read what I had written and it was a perfectly fine piece of professional writing. (For the record: OAuth is a really cool thing!)

I don’t doubt that I am able to do all of this. But it’s clear that expertise in one area doesn’t imply expertise in another.

So I’m good at my job. I have the kind of expertise that employers are desperate for. And so last Wednesday, I had a Skype call with what I refer to as the two Grand Poobahs of Quality Nonsense: Toni and Richard. I mean that in the kindest sense. They are both among the smartest and most creative people I have ever known — much less worked with. And they decided that I should take over the management of our freelance writers. This is mostly because Toni has far too much other work to do, and Richard is always coming up with new things to do. I’m going along with it because it’s what they want. But I’m skeptical.

Expertise in Writing! Expertise in Managing?!

It’s true that I have much expertise in writing and editing the work that I’ve been given control over. But this kind of expertise does not translate into expertise in managing a bunch of writers. And it isn’t just a matter of my getting work done. There are a bunch of freelance writers who need to work to get paid. I need to make sure that they are kept busy so that they can pay their rent and feed their kids and whatnot. It’s daunting. And although I’ve managed people before, it has never been like this. What I’ve done before I would call more “overseeing.” For example, I once managed seven Romanian programmers. But that mostly meant that I interacted with one of them about the general work that needed to be done. He then assigned tasks.

I don’t doubt that I am able to do all of this. But it’s clear that expertise in one area doesn’t imply expertise in another. My abilities as a professional writer came as a result of thousands of hours of work. My ability to manage these writers will doubtless be helped by my writing and editing experience. But mostly, I will be dependent upon being generally smart and having a decent understanding of basic management. And in a perfect world, I probably wouldn’t be put in this position. There are probably people who are much worse writers than I am who would be far better than I will be at this.

But I hope that through a combination of my current skills, some time to learn, and lots of understanding on the part of the Grand Poobahs and the writers I can reach an acceptable level of expertise. But that sure isn’t a given.