House Rules

Posted on by
Reply

House RulesMy son has ADHD and is  very stubborn, controlling and thinks he rules the world, and if he does not get his way he gets very oppositional and defiant, slamming doors, flipping over furniture and uses hurtful words.

This morning was one of those mornings where he did not get his way and the house turned upside down. You see, he woke up at 7:30 am and got dressed, and I caught him sneaking out the door to go our next door neighbors without asking. Not only was it too early to go and knock on someones door, at 7:30 am, but he did not ask for permission, one of our house rules.

Our ‘House Rules’ are simple and we only have a few of them to make things easier.
1. Say please and thank you
2. Respect each other
3. Ask before you do
4. Use kind words
5. Love each other

In addition to our ‘House Rules’, my son has a routine of what is expected of him in his day to day routine, for example; brushing his teeth, getting dressed, showering daily, coming his hair, going to school, etc…If he meets the expectations he will get a specified amount of time for TV, ipad, playing with dad, playing with mom and play dates. If not, certain privileges will be taken away!

Back to this morning’s event! After catching him sneaking out the door I had to ask him nicely 25 or more times (I lost count) to come back inside, with a response of “Shut Up” or some other non-acceptable words every time. I finally got him back in the house and tried to explain to him that he can’t just walk out the door without asking plus on top of that, he cannot go knocking on someone’s door at 7:30 am. OMG, doors slammed and things went flying and the threats of he’s going to hit me started. This is where I usually lose it but today I tried to remain calm, choosing my words carefully and then re-direct. This took 30 minutes to do but we were finally able to get dressed, walk out the door, get in the car and go and get some breakfast before I dropped him off at camp.

Sitting at breakfast we were able to talk a little about what happened, how he did not follow several of our house rules, the consequence he will get for not asking to go next door and how disappointed I was. I am now on my way next door to explain what happened and to have them help me enforce the consequence of my son not being allowed to visit them today and if he tries, ask them to send him home.

In addition of letting him know of his consequence for today’s behavior, I also informed him of his schedule after I pick him up from camp so I will not experience any more opposition. He will be spending an hour with his educational therapist reading and reviewing math facts and then we are going to his behaviorist.

Needless to say I am exhausted and frustrated from this morning and having a hard time sinking my teeth into work and doing my daily chores. I need to get some food in me and run to the grocery store but instead I decided to put everything in writing hoping it will make me feel better. My son is the most sensitive, loving and caring child but sometimes he just snaps and this is where our family really struggles!

Democrats, Media Allow Republicans to Abuse Scandals

Posted on by
Reply

Scandal?!Last time I discussed the IRS targeting of Tea Party related groups, I wrote, What If There Was No IRS Scandal? I was especially interested in a comment made by Holly Paz that “tea party” was a generic term for obviously partisan political groups who were trying to get non-profit and non-disclosure statuses. The issue matters to me because I hate the recent rise in the injustices done to people in the political world simply because no one can take the time to figure out what is going on before firing people. We saw this with ACORN and Shirley Sherrod and at the beginning of the IRS scandal with Steven T. Miller.

Today, the Associated Press reported a bombshell: Documents Show IRS Also Screened Liberal Groups. There is no scandal here, not even a little internal IRS scandal:

The Internal Revenue Service’s screening of groups seeking tax-exempt status was broader and lasted longer than has been previously disclosed, the new head of the agency acknowledged Monday. Terms including “Israel,” “Progressive” and “Occupy” were used by agency workers to help pick groups for closer examination, according to an internal IRS document obtained by The Associated Press.

So now what? From my perspective, this is yet another example of our completely dysfunctional political system. We see the same process repeated over and over again. Republicans claim there is some terrible scandal. Democrats freak out, sacrificing their own in the name of limiting the damage. When all the facts come out, there is no scandal. But much damage has been done. The Republicans have flayed the Democrats for months in the media. It doesn’t matter that it all comes to naught; a bad impression is left. What’s more, Democratic allies have been sacrificed, which is not good for morale. Also, it makes related liberal groups far less likely to back Democrats in the future. Can you say Al Gore? And finally, the Republicans pay absolutely no political price for their actions, mostly because the Democrats just drop the issue because they’re so glad it is all over. And the media have nothing to cover other than their own incompetence.

I don’t blame the Republicans. They are doing a great job in getting what they want. I blame the Democrats for doing everything they can to help the Republicans. And I blame the media for treating every Republican scandal like it was something other than yet another power grab. These are our real problems. The Democrats need to grow a soul and the media need to grow a brain. I’m not expecting either.

Immigration Reform Still Loser for Republicans

Posted on by
Reply

Scared RepublicansEarlier this month, I asked a rhetorical question, Why Should Republicans Support Immigration Reform? It was rhetorical because I knew there was no answer. As I’ve argued again and again since this silly issue came up on the evening of 6 November 2012: the Latino aversion to the Republican Party is a hell of a lot bigger than immigration reform. Less than a week after the election, I noted that when it comes to Latinos, Ideology is Biggest Republican Problem. And as time has gone by, it has become more and more clear that if the federal government does pass some kind of immigration reform, it will be despite the Republican Party, not because of it.

Still, many political observers who I respect—most notably Greg Sargent—seem to think that Boehner will allow a vote on the immigration bill because a whole bunch of House Republicans who don’t want to vote for it themselves will nonetheless want it passed because it is good for their party. First: really?! I mean, one thing that almost defines the Tea Party caucus is that they don’t give a flying fuck what the party elites think. They believe that the Republican Party has lost its way by being too liberal and too inclusive. According to this line of argument, all the Republican Party needs to do is get more conservative than Hitler and enact a few voter ID laws and they will rule Washington. These are not people who are thinking, “If only we won 45% of the Latino vote, Mitt Romney would be president!”

But there is a bigger issue that Ed Kilgore explained perfectly this evening:

Now if the benefit GOPers are supposed to be getting from the enactment of comprehensive immigration reform is the gratitude of business lobbyists and/or Karl Rove, I suppose this rather Machiavellian argument could make sense. But if the real prize here is a better image among Latino voters, it’s not obvious why Republicans are going to get credit for covertly allowing the enactment of a law mostly supported by Democrats and loudly opposed by a majority of Republicans in both Houses.

What Sargent and company seem to be missing is that the 11 million undocumented immigrants here in the United States is not a huge thorn in the side of the recent immigrant community. True: most of them would like something done about this shadow culture. But they still care most about what everyone cares about: bread and butter issues. And on those issues, the Republican Party has been very clear: they don’t care about helping the poor or giving them a hand up. As I wrote just after last year’s election, It’s the Poor, Stupid. Most immigrants are poor and that is why they vote for the Democratic Party. And no amount of single issue pandering is going to change that.

So I’m with Kilgore. It’s possible that Boehner will bring the immigration bill to a vote. But I don’t see any reason why he would. Politically, it seems like a real loser to me.

Update (24 June 2013 11:11 pm)

Steve Benen is usually an insightful guy, but this morning he offered up the following clip of Lindsey Graham as evidence of reasonableness from a Republican:

The problem is that other than the little words, pretty much everything that Graham says is false. He is pushing this idea that Latinos are really conservative that is simply wrong. Also: if they don’t pass the immigration bill Latinos will not vote for Republicans because of that. In general, Latinos will not vote for Republicans anyway. There are two Republican sides on this. One includes the Republicans who understand where their political fortunes lie. We’ll call them the evil Republicans. And the other includes the Republicans who are deluding themselves about getting Latino votes. We’ll call them the crazy Republicans. It could be that the crazy Republicans will win this fight. But I’m afraid that Benen is letting his desire for an immigration bill cloud his perceptions of what is going on in the Republican Party.

Bierce and Reich

Posted on by
Reply

Robert ReichWhen I was first introduced to unix in 1988, a big part of the experience was that whenever I logged in, I got a “message of the day” in the form of a little program, typically named “motd.” All the program did was pick randomly from a text file of quotes. I’m sure it was added to over the years by the various nerdy people who developed the various parts of the operating system. And they were very fond of Ambrose Bierce and his The Devil’s Dictionary. It includes wonderful definitions like:

Actually (adv) Perhaps; possibly.

Conservative (n) A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.

Religion (n) A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.

Brilliant, right? Ambrose Bierce was born on this day in 1842. And then, when he was 71 he disappeared in Mexico. Bierce was a journalist and author and war hero. Here is a French short film based upon Bierce’s short story, “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge.” It is really good:

Irish playwright George Shiels was born in 1886. Boxer Jack Dempsey was born in 1895. Tennis shoe evangelist Chuck Taylor was born in 1901. The great British astronomer Fred Hoyle was born in 1915. And painter Margaret Olley was born in 1923.

Al MolinaroYou probably have never heard of him, but actor Al Molinaro is 94 today. But I know you know him, that’s why I’ve included his picture on the right. He was the owner of Arnold’s on Happy Days and (as in the picture) Murray the Cop on The Odd Couple. And I love this quote from him, “I spent twenty years here before I got anything going, and from that I got lucky. It takes a lot of luck in show business. You’ve just got to be lucky and in the right place at the right time.” I wish more people understood how important luck is to their success. And how can you not love that face?!

Guitarist Jeff Beck is 69. Here he is with The Yardbirds, although for the record, I think Jimmy Page is better:

Drummer Mick Fleetwood is 66. Actor Nancy Allen is 63. Scottish actor Iain Glen is 52. And really vile human being who uses religion to oppress the weak, Ralph Reed is also 52.

The day however, belongs to the great political economist who is there on the right under “Daily Off Sites,” Robert Reich who is 67 today. He has it all. He’s an excellent writer with a good sense of humor. Oh, and he’s one of the most insightful political observers around. Having been on the inside as Labor Secretary under Clinton, he understands the politics as well as the economics that is going on. And most of all, he cares that our society is totally screwed up and is trying to do something about it. Here he is in one of his great videos. This one is on Three Economic Myths:

Happy birthday Robert Reich!

Image of Robert Reich by Danorton (own work), licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikipedia.

Obama bin Lyin’

Posted on by
Reply
Obama bin Lyin'

I just saw this bumper sticker in the parking lot of Trader Joe’s. As you probably know, I have major problems with the “What Do You Think of Obama Now?” bumper stickers. This one is even worse. It goes right to heart of what it means to be the loyal opposition. The conservative movement has long been the disloyal opposition. This is what allows them to think it is right and fitting to block every Obama initiative, not because they disagree with it, but because it comes from Obama. It is also what allowed Obama to endure over four years of claims that he was not a legitimate president because he wasn’t born in the United States. We didn’t hear such hysterics from Democrats about Bush who was actually illegitimate (but only in the sense that he didn’t get the most votes in the country or the state of Florida).

What is the bumper sticker saying? It claims that Obama is a liar. I’m sure that is technically true. But is it more true of him than any other president? I certainly don’t see that. In fact, one of my complaints about Obama is that he is too straightforward. He is not wily. He thinks that the best way to negotiate is to come right out with your best offer. Deceptiveness is just not what is wrong with our current president.

And what exactly is Obama lying about? At first, I thought the sticker was a reference to all the recent real and pretend scandals. But that isn’t it at all. Seth Colter Walls reported seeing such a sign at a McCain rally back in October 2008. And it not only dates back further, it is an evolution of “Bush bin Lyin'” signs as far back as 2004. However, those signs were never popular because, they make no sense. At least “Obama bin Lyin'” scans.

What is most ridiculous, of course, is that Obama killed Osama bin Laden. But I’m sure the point is always just to characterize Obama as the worst enemy of our country. (As though bin Laden was ever even that!) This is not limited to the right. We on the left do it too. But there is a difference. As stupid as “Bush bin Lyin'” is (and it was normally “Bush Bin Lyin” which makes the joke even harder to understand), at least it went along with the narrative that Bush lied us into war. There were no “Bush bin Lyin'” signs even as early as 2003. So the etymology was: (1) Bush lied; (2) “Bush lied” signs. With Obama it is just: (1) “Obama lied” signs. What did Obama lie about? Oh, take your pick! He’s Emmanuel Goldstein: evil, dirty, dishonest. They’ll fill in the details as necessary.

I find these kinds of attacks on Obama most frustrating. There are very real problems with Obama. But with very few exceptions (e.g. Josh Barro, Ramesh Ponnuru), the only people who are acting as the loyal opposition are those of us on the left. What we now have is a political system with one traditional party: the Democrats. And then we have one reactionary party: the Republicans who don’t so much stand for anything but against whatever the Democrats do. That’s not a stable system. And it is particularly bad for the Democratic Party. If we continue this way, we will end up with two parties who only believe that they ought to be in power.

Afterword

My general belief is that we have reached this state because of the Democrats. By co-opting more and more Republican positions, the Democrats have pushed the Republicans to the extreme right where they are stuck. But we will leave that for another day. The fact remains that the Democrats do still stand for something: what the Republicans used to stand for. The Republicans don’t really stand for anything. I think even they realize what a disaster it would be if they got their way at this point: the conservative alternative to conservative policy? Ouch!

Vague Patent Trolling

Posted on by
Reply

Timothy B. LeeTimothy B. Lee has been doing a lot of excellent reporting at Wonk Blog about our broken intellectual property system. At first, I was highly skeptical of Lee. Maybe it was unfair, but he used to work at the Cato Institute and my experience is that most libertarians have a blind spot when it comes to these issues. But he clearly understands the warping effects of these laws. At this point, things are so out of control that the system could be greatly improve before we would disagree on how best to move forward. In the end, I think that a socialistic approach to intellectual property is the best, and I doubt that Lee would agree. However, I’m in favor of a voluntary system; the big Hollywood studios could keep their copyrights. But a good solution to the problem would require that tax dollars go to support the system.

Lee’s latest IP article discussed the outrageous ruling of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit—for the second time! As he reported, “A firm called Ultramercial claims to have invented the concept of showing a customer an ad instead of charging for content.” This would be like thousands of years ago someone claiming that he invented the concept of exchanging goods for services and mandating that everyone pay him for his “invention.” Last year, the Appeals Court found the same way and the Supreme Court slapped it down and told it to reconsider the case. And they did: they found that they were right the first time.

Our patent and copyright system has degenerated to a point were it is little more than a legal maneuver. The idea of “showing a customer an ad instead of charging for content” is something we’ve had since at least the invention of newspapers. In this case, the court found that the “invention” wasn’t abstract enough to not qualify for protection. What I don’t understand is how this ruling can be seen as furthering any interests except that of Ultramercial, which is clearly just a patent troll. The justification for patents is that they encourage innovation. This ruling does exactly the opposite.

When I see rulings like this, all I can figure is that the justices are in way over their heads. They really don’t understand how the economy works and they don’t get innovation at all. They must see it as nothing but a legal strategy and may the best lawyer win. But the law is not supposed to be a game. Patents distort the market, but maybe that is okay because the benefits outweigh the deficits. But vague and obvious patents like the idea of advertising on the internet distort the market so much that they encourage litigation and discourage innovation.

The good news is that there is a decent chance that the Supreme Court will hear the case. Lee reported:

And it takes a narrower view of what can be patented than the Federal Circuit does—the last three Supreme Court decisions on the subject all invalidated patents the Federal Circuit had approved. If the appeals court responsible for patent law won’t rein in frivolous patenting, perhaps the Supreme Court will do the job itself.

But it doesn’t make me feel too good that there is so much damaging thinking in our legal system. There is a tendency on the part of conservatives especially to blame our litigious society on the poor. But the real problem we have is in the business community where we have true takers like Ultramercial who add nothing but demand their rents.

Good Change at SEC — Maybe

Posted on by
Reply

Mary Jo WhiteMary Jo White, the new chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, is urging an end to the practice of settlements with businesses where they admit no wrongdoing. I agree with Matt Yglesias that this is a good change. For too long we’ve allowed companies to avoid any reputational stain for their misbehavior. The fines they paid were just seen as the cost of doing business. And given that the fines are never substantial relative to the size of the businesses, the SEC settlements don’t even amount to a slap on the wrist.

Where I part with Yglesias is in his belief that it really will matter. He says symbols matter and I agree. And it will be a very big deal when the first big company reaches a settlement with the SEC that includes an admission of wrongdoing. There will be a lot of pundit chatter about how important it is. But then it won’t make any real difference to the public. The company will launch a PR campaign and everything will be forgotten. And “admission of wrongdoing” will become the new normal. Business schools will teach classes on how to handle potential fallout from such deals.

What might actually help is holding top executives criminally liable for the wrongdoing of their businesses. But we’re not going to see that. Just like everywhere in the modern world, those at the top get all of the benefits from their position but absolutely none of the responsibilities. All of us scratch our heads when CEOs who have done great damage to their companies are given generous compensation when they are thrown out. This is the same thing. The theory is that the power elite are better than the rest of us and therefore cannot be made to suffer in the slightest. It is our version of aristocracy but without the noblesse oblige.

This decision by White may, however, be a good sign about her. She may be prepared to really face off with these companies. But it is impossible to say. As Yglesias wrote, “In brass tacks terms, one might wonder how much this matters. Is a fine plus an admission of guilt really so much worse than a fine plus a ‘neither admit nor deny’ wrongdoing?” He thinks it is. But to me, this could just be White’s way of mollifying the masses without doing anything that would make the business community unhappy.

Time will tell how good a job Mary Jo White does. I started out being very skeptical of her. This announcement doesn’t really change my position. But if she goes on to make the SEC into an institution that really does the people’s work, we will probably look back at this decision as the start of it all. With all my skepticism, I really do hope that turns out to be true.

Image of Mary Jo White is her official US government photo and so is in the public domain.

NASCAR Culture and Sport

Posted on by
17

Dale EarnhardtI spent today at the 2013 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series at Sonoma. I have never been to a NASCAR race and I doubt I will ever go again. But it was a great opportunity to see what it was all about. As you may remember, I wrote about auto racing less than a month ago and questioned why people like watching the sport. What’s more, I mentioned the effect that Dale Earnhardt’s death had on increasing the popularity of the sport. And here I was today watching his son, Junior, race. It was an educational experience on two levels: sporting and cultural.

Sport

There were 42 drivers competing today so I figured I needed to settle on a couple of them. There was one woman driving, so I picked her: Danica Patrick. And I picked another driver that I mistakenly thought was Iranian: Boris Said. Mostly I focused on Patrick because she was in the most brightly colored car and it made it really easy to spot. As a result of this, I got a better idea of the skills that are involved in racing. It is a lot like watching chess. Basically, it is a defensive sport. The driver is trying to not make a mistake that will allow another driver to get past her. That really is the main thing. There isn’t much brilliant driving, only keen skill in taking advantage of opponents’ mistakes. And that is most of what goes on in a chess game.

It is also like a chess game in that it is highly technical. The errors made by the drivers are all quite minor. Except for the crashes, of course. But I don’t think there is all that much appreciation of what is going on. The difference between a good turn and a bad turn strikes me as very small, even though one ends with a position change and the other does not. In that way, I can see that the crashes might have an appeal that is totally unrelated to the danger and damage. It does act as a kind of shuffling of the deck. It is the one time during a race when positions change in a big way. The rest of the race is quite subtle.

Speaking of accidents… Given that what I saw was a “12 turn road race,” it did not have the potential for high speed crashes that the oval track races do. I much prefer that. But there was one crash and the audience gasped. Or at least, the women in the audience gasped. It made me feel a lot better about the people who like auto racing. From now on, I’m going to assume that they really are concerned about that aspect of the races.

Culture

Although my opinion of auto racing fans was marginally improved by the great gasp, the NASCAR culture on display was truly horrifying. A friend of mine had made a joke about Confederate flags I would see at the race. I thought it was just that: a joke. But it wasn’t. I saw many Confederate flags. I find this very offensive. First, the Confederacy was a rebellion against the United States. It was not only unpatriotic, it was treasonous. Second, it was done in the name of our greatest national shame: slavery. I have no problem with people being proud of their southern heritage. But Germans manage to show their pride without waving Nazi flags around. The Confederate flag is no less offensive.

I was surprised that the auto race started with some Eagle Scouts leading us in the Pledge of Allegiance. That annoyed me for a couple of reasons. First: Eagle Scouts. Really? Why not just have Anita Bryant lead us in a stirring rendition of “One In A Million.” Second: I hate the Cold War pandering “Under God” addition. But most of all, I don’t like pledges of that kind. It’s too general. What exactly am I pledging? I’m sure everyone has their own ideas and that’s dangerous. I think it is particularly dangerous when a lot of those people think the Confederate rebellion was some kind of act of patriotism.

After the Pledge, it got much, much worse. There was a prayer. I was stunned. But what was really interesting was that I didn’t get the idea that most of the people were particularly happy about it. There was, however, a vocal minority who were whooping it up. And that told me two things. First, it wasn’t about religion; it was about cultural signifying. They were saying that they were the real Americans: the ones who are Christians. (Of course, check out this Google image search of Danica Patrick to get some idea of just how wholesome a sport auto racing is.) Second, NASCAR is pandering to this vocal minority.

Everywhere I went at this race I was struck by how NASCAR uses a kind of cliched Red State idea of what a real American is. It wasn’t just the ostentatious religion and the waving Confederate flags. There were constant mentions of our military. I remembered one point in particular, the announcer said that our “military men and women” keep us safe. We spend as much on our military as the next 11 countries combined. That isn’t a military that “keeps us safe”; that’s an imperialist military. What’s more, I’m not convinced that the safety our military provides us isn’t offset by the extra danger they bring upon us. Certainly, the 2000+ US troops who have died in Afghanistan were not safer.

So I have an increased appreciation for the sport of NASCAR. But it is way more than offset by its cultural pandering. Of course, it wouldn’t be my thing anyway. It is incredibly loud. It may be interesting, but it isn’t exciting. And it doesn’t show humans at their best the way that baseball or tennis can. Regardless, NASCAR clearly goes out of its way to make anyone like me feel unwelcome.

Apologies to Alan Turing

Posted on by
4

Alan TurningOn this day in 1894, the iconic sex researcher Alfred Kinsey was born. He was trained as an entomologist, which I suppose is as good a form of training as anything to study human sexuality. Kinsey’s great insight was simply that if you wanted to understand human sexuality, you just needed to ask humans about their sexuality. People are surprisingly honest about that kind of thing. Even as late as the discovery of natural selection, co-discoverer Alfred Russel Wallace was shy about placing man in with the other animals. To this day I find that many people think there is something fundamentally different between animals and humans. So the idea that human sexuality would be just like that of animals was and still is quite shocking to people. Ultimately, Kinsey’s main findings should not be surprising: human sexuality is a statistical continuum—deviance is a social and not a physical construct.

The great choreographer and film director Bob Fosse was born in 1927. It is really hard to pick something to showcase his work. It is best to watch one of his best films: Sweet Charity, Cabaret, Lenny, and All That Jazz. But here is a great scene from that last film with much credit to editor Alan Heim:

And June Carter Cash was born in 1929.

American embarrassment Clarence Thomas is 65 today. A good day to retire? Actor Frances McDormand is 56. I’ve been a fan of hers as far back as Mississippi Burning, where she had the weight of the whole of the decent white people of Mississippi. But she’s best known for Fargo. I’m not that big a fan of the film, but I really do love this scene near the end of the picture where she sums up its theme, “I just don’t understand it.” No, none of us really do:

And Joss Whedon is 49 today. I’m very fond of Firefly. I also think he wrote a good script for the movie Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which I think Fran Rubel Kuzui made a mess of. I’ve tried to like the series but apart from developing a crush on Alyson Hannigan, I think the show errs in not realizing it is first and foremost a comedy. I liked his script for Alien Resurrection. And you can read what I had to say about The Avengers. So he’s a mixed bag and certainly way overrated.

The day, however, belongs to the father of the computer Alan Turing who was born on this day back in 1912. He was also extremely important in breaking Nazi codes during World War II. We rewarded him by castrating him for the “crime” of homosexuality which quickly led to his suicide at the age of 41. But lest you think I am suggesting that we are somewhat more enlightened now, I’m not. Here’s what I wrote about Michelle Obama’s interest in Downton Abbey:

I assure you of this: in 100 years, people will look back on us with horror that we threw junkies into jail for decades (when we didn’t just let them die from dirty needles and tainted drugs). And they will look very far down on a president and first lady who watched millions of young people’s lives destroyed while they patted themselves on the back for their liberal attitudes. Oh my! How very forward thinking the president was in coming out in favor of marriage equality in 2012! What cutting edge liberal thinking! Please. Let’s be clear: if it were 1952, Obama would (Regrettably, mind you!) be in favor of castrating Alan Turing.

We are a horrible people and we always will be. My very great apology to Turing and all of the rest. But for today, I hope, I can say without irony:

Happy birthday Alan Turing!

Unstable Weirdos and Business Success

Posted on by
3

EntrepreneursDave Logan over at CBS News explains why so many geniuses don’t have jobs. He has a broad definition of the word “genius”: anyone who is brilliant at something or other that the business world might find useful. The problem is that people who are really good at one thing are usually very bad at others. Like most management consultants, Logan likes to quantify things, even if it is just a wild ass guess; so he lays out a 10-point scale: 1 being very bad and 10 being great. Implicit in his argument is that companies would rather hire someone who was 5 across the board than some brilliant person who also had personality issues.

Logan also subdivides the geniuses into three categories: (1) obnoxious extroverts; (2) invisible introverts; and (3) unstable weirdos. But like most people in the business self-help world, he has no real insights into these people. His big idea is to train them to act more appropriately in a business setting. That might work with the obnoxious extroverts, but it won’t work for the others. The only way to work with a brilliant introvert is to create a safe environment were he can gain confidence. Introverts are more than willing to put forward their ideas if they get the chance. My experience of it is that in most businesses it is only the loud who get listened to. So if employers want to hire brilliant introverts, they need to change their work environments, not their introverts.

For the unstable weirdos, it is even worse. Logan writes of them:

On their good days, they seem like ideal executives — able to take lots of views into account, plot the best course forward, and exude so much energy, the lights are brighter when they’re in the room. On their bad days, they are moody, unresponsive, slow, and pessimistic. They may have bipolar disorder, or something else.

Exactly! Yet he thinks that somehow they can be fixed with a little chat about office decorum? Bipolar people aren’t pretending. They really do think they can conquer the world some days and can hardly manage to get out of bed others. It’s brain chemistry. And it’s awful.

Being, by all accounts, a type (3) and to a lesser extent a type (2) genius, I know what kind of work environments these kinds of people need. And that is the problem. The business community does not like these kinds of people because they disrupt regular order in the work place. And it isn’t just their oddities. Their “positive” attributes are also upsetting under most circumstances. Logan mentions Steve Jobs. Regardless what you think of him (I think he is the most overrated executive ever), he wasn’t part of a team — he always led the team. Thus he created the environment that he needed to flourish.

Even in the high tech world, people are treated as parts of a machine. That is why they have job titles like “computer programmer.” If one employee leaves, another can be hired and plugged into the same position. I’ve had the experience of being too valuable to an employer, and they hated it. And understandably so! If I had left suddenly, they would have been screwed. But on an even more fundamental level, they just didn’t trust me because I was not really part of their tribe. I didn’t fit in and fitting in is what most work is about. Most companies just trudge along. They don’t innovate. People need coat hangers, not new fangled devices for hanging clothes. And so finally, what is an odd genius in the workplace other than a dangerous disruption?

When a company needs a genius, it contracts with one.

Afterword

The idea that businessmen are necessarily entrepreneurs is ridiculous. Most successful businesses are nothing more than well managed operations. Innovation is only acceptable if it is incremental. Businesses do not do revolution. Think of Apple: most people’s idea of a highly innovative company. They’ve come up with almost nothing new. They are good at packaging other people’s ideas. But even there, the “look and feel” of their devices has evolved gradually. Like most big high tech companies, when they want a new technology, they just buy some little company where geniuses are still welcome.

Impulsivity in the Park

Posted on by
Reply

kids playing outsideFor those who don’t know, I homeschool my son. Part of the experience involves participating in afternoon park days with a couple of homeschool groups every week. Most often my boy seems to have fun as he plays with other kids. This past week, however, was not the greatest experience due to an incident during a game of Red Rover.

Allow me to briefly explain what this game involves. The kids split into two groups. One group forms a line holding hands. They call members of the other group over by saying “Red Rover, Red Rover, send (input child’s name) right over.” The kid who’s called has to run as forcefully as he or she can toward the line of children holding hands. The object is to break the connection between two of these kids. After that, I forget what the rules are. I know, it sounds like an injury waiting to happen, especially for the fact that the age range of kids playing this particular day was 4 to 13. I know it seems obvious that maybe we should have suggested another game, but hindsight is 20/20, and it was a game I played as a kid without injury (at least none I can remember).

Anyway, while a couple of other parents and I were chatting away, I looked over and noticed a small child on the ground. It wasn’t clear if he was injured because he wasn’t crying. As it turns out, he had been hurt by my son who happened to now be facing away from the group several yards away. I called my son to return to the group to have him discuss the situation, but he was, as usual, close-mouth. I knew that this was not a time to be accusatory (not that it ever is), especially since my boy had tears welling up in his eyes. I simply and gently told him that it was just important to apologize when we make a mistake and hurt someone.

Meanwhile, two of my son’s friends gave the details of the story. What happened was apparently a combination of errors. There were only three kids holding hands in a line. Two of the bigger kids in the line had been standing so closely that my kid’s only option was to run between the smaller child and the older kid in the middle. Because he has ADHD, my son doesn’t always think about consequences. He might otherwise have asked the children who were standing shoulder to shoulder to separate.

Normally, when my son unintentionally hurts someone, especially a small child, he demonstrates remorse and apologizes. According to my boy’s storyteller friends, in this situation, he didn’t get a chance. When he tried to run through the line and the small child toppled over, that child’s big brother immediately laid into my son, saying things like, “Thanks a lot for hurting my brother!”

After the incident and after I got the details of the story, my son left the group, teary-eyed, and headed to the bathroom. Fortunately, there was a  dad in the group who was able to follow him to chat and make sure my son was okay.

In my head, a light went on. I had always wondered why my kid wanders off by himself so often. Sometimes I see him sitting on the lawn in the middle of the park or climbing a distant tree. Often, I have gone to him and asked “what’s wrong,” to which I get, “Nothing. Everything’s fine.” Even though my son is so close-mouthed, I now strongly believe he goes off by himself after something bad has happened. To make matters worse, since my son has a reputation for doing things without thinking, other kids feel they have a license to be inappropriately severe with him.

My son’s impulsivity has diminished as he’s gotten older, though it can apparently still cause him problems. I just have to hope the impulsivity will occur less and less often, and I will keep reminding him to consider potential outcomes for any given situation. Maybe this will help. Though this is tough for many people, I think.

While my son was in the bathroom having a heart-to-heart with the homeschool dad, I was talking with the mom whose boys were involved in the Red Rover incident. I was able to explain to her that my son has a diagnosis of ADHD. I also had to kind of explain to her what that means, as much as I know, anyway. She actually thanked me. She said her older boy and mine had had some history of conflict. My explanation for my son’s impulsivity was really helpful, and she would have a talk with her children. I’d like to think that this will help and this will improve my son’s relationship with the other kids. I now feel like I should be talking to more parents about why my son often behaves the way he does, the fact that he has ADHD and what that means.

The Private Life of Billy Wilder

Posted on by
Reply

Billy WilderOn this day back in 1903, John Dillinger was born. What I’ve always found so interesting about him is how he and Baby Face Nelson hooked up. Compared to Nelson, Dillinger seems almost aristocratic. Or at least not a total psychopath. Anyway, Dillinger had just turned 31 when he was killed. That seems amazing, but maybe it shouldn’t. Nelson was only 25 when he was killed. All those gangsters were so precocious!

Producer Joseph Papp was born in 1921. Fashion designer Bill Blass was born in 1922. And Freddie Prinze was born in 1954. I was going to put up a clip from Chico and the Man, but they were all awful. Here is Prinze doing some respectable stand-up:

Pa Walton, Ralph Waite is 85 today. Dianne Feinstein is 80. Why didn’t she retire this year? Kris Kristofferson is 77. I don’t really get most of his music. Except for this one:

Fucktard Brit Hume is 70. Todd Rundgren is 65, so I guess he’ll retire now. I think of him primarily for his production of Bat Out of Hell, which really is an excellent album. Three notable women all turn 64 today: Meryl Streep, Lindsay Wagner, and Elizabeth Warren. The other Graham Greene is 61. He starred in one of my very favorite movies Medicine River. The funny thing about that film is that almost no one has seen it, but those who have love it. And that’s why sellers on Amazon can get away with selling a VHS copy for $40. If you get a chance, don’t miss it.

Cyndi Lauper is 60. Bruce Campbell is 55. Environmentalist Erin Brockovich is 53. Basketball player Clyde Drexler is 51. Author Dan Brown is 49. And the boxing director Uwe Boll is 48.

The day, however, belongs to one of my favorite directors, Billy Wilder who was born on this day in 1906. He directed a number of my favorite films: Some Like It Hot, The Apartment, and (perhaps surprisingly, since no one else cared for it) The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, which sadly is about an hour too short and it isn’t clear whether it will ever be properly restored. I think this trailer is horrible, but it gives an okay idea of the film:

Happy birthday Billy Wilder!