The Kind of Work I Do

It has already been established on this blog that I am messy by default. My desk, room, garage, workshop, and van were in a constant state of disorder. I have gone to great lengths to improve that, but without medicine and constant vigilance, I would resort back to my natural state.

However, I am neat when it counts. When I leave a customer site, I leave it better than when I arrived. I learned that in the Marine Corps: when we stopped in the field for a while, we always removed evidence that we had been there before we left. When we setup in a non-tactical area of operations, we would clean up litter that was there before us. In Iraq, the Marines make sure that they leave a town with more water, schools, and soccer balls than when they arrived.

I have a strong work ethic. I get it from my father. He taught me that a job worth doing is worth doing right. That has a lot of depth to it. There is existentialism written all over it. Would you and should you do a job that isn't worth doing? Why would you do a job that isn't worth doing? What makes it worth doing? And if it is worth doing, why would you not do it right? What is the point of having a job that is truly worth doing and then doing it wrong or only doing half the job?

I exist to work. I do not exist to earn a paycheck, or to make an employer rich, or to call myself by a title. I exist to do something. That something is defined by me and it transcends "jobs", employers, salaries, and titles. At the end of my life, no one will care what server I saved or which router I installed. If anyone cares at all, they will care how I did more than what I did. That includes how I treated people, whether I conformed to the big picture or not, and what effect my existence had on the my sphere of influence. Did I leave the world better off than when I found it or did I leave a mess for someone else to clean up?

In August of 1997, I had been out of the Marines for a year and was still trying to find myself. I was working for a Pepsi distributor at the time, which was a low paying job with no benefits but the best job I could find at the time. I traveled to grocery stores to fill their shelves and build displays.

I was the most junior guy on my team, which meant that for a long time I did not have my own regular stores; I filled in where I was needed. On August 13th, my boss called and offered me my own route. The guy who had the route was getting fired for performance issues. Getting my own stores was a proud moment for me. Mainly, it meant that you could always go to these stores to see how well I did my job.

The first store on my route was the Price Chopper in Stanley, KS. I arrived at 6am on August 14th, 1997 as proud as could be. As soon as I walked into the backroom, I was greeted by the manager of the backroom. He was an old man whose life did not turn out the way he had dreamed and he took it out on everyone around him. He chewed my ass for the condition of his store. I explained that the person responsible had been terminated and that I was the polar opposite. I agreed that his store was atrocious, and that it required my top priority.

I should have delivered by speech to the brick wall; this guy just wanted to be an a-hole. I will never forget how angry he made me by assuming I was another slacker. I considered telling my boss. I considered telling his boss. I considered breaking his fingers. I considered ripping his tiny little heart out of his chest and stomping on it. I was a little angry.

His biggest complaint was the pile of damaged Pepsi packages. We were supposed to repackage as much as we could and then make a safe and secure pallet of the unrecoverables to ship out. It was dirty work: the breakers were often covered with sticky spray from a punctured can, as well as the grime that accumulates quickly in a backroom.

Taking care of damage was also time consuming. You had to locate new packaging and box tape, then clean the product, then build a package one can at a time, etc... It could turn a ten hour day into a twelve hour day. It could also make you late getting to your next store, which would result in another ass-chewing by that manager who was angry about life, his two ex-wives, his daughter's tattoo, and the lack of Pepsi on his shelves.

The damage at Stanley Price Chopper had built up for a long time. The backroom manager was sick of it, and he was not going to give me a fair chance to correct the problem. He pulled out a Polaroid camera and took a picture of the pile to show my boss:

I love a challenge, and this guy had thrown down the gauntlet. I knew that I wouldn't be in trouble for this mess; it wasn't mine and my boss knew it. I knew it was a low-priority for my boss; my higher priorities were filling shelves and building displays for several stores. I also knew this backroom guy barely mattered: he did not make purchasing decisions and he would give himself a coronary any day. However, this was a chance to rise above average, to prove to myself and anyone else watching that I had something more inside of me than a $10 per hour manual labor job. I had a chance to make myself proud, and maybe someone else along the way.

On 8/14/97, I worked hard. I left the Stanley Price Chopper with full shelves of product (all facing forward), well constructed and attractive displays, and full vending machines-but the backroom still looked like a disaster. I had five more stores to worry about.

I arrived at other stores that had suffered similar neglect, but I was not met with the same ferocity that greeted me in Stanley. It was long day of heavy lifting, working my way down crowded aisles of oblivious shoppers, driving down crowded roads of oblivious drivers, and plenty of tedious labor. After I finished my route, I returned to Stanley. By now, I was all alone back there and could work in peace. I cleaned up the mess, made my rows of Pepsi neat, and left the store exactly the way I should as a conscientious and proud merchandiser. Then I went looking for a Polaroid.

I asked the young girl at the front counter about the camera, and she found it easily. I think I told her I needed a picture of a product display or something, but I doubt she really cared. I took two pictures of the scene below:

The backroom manager had pinned the photo of the Pepsi mess next to his desk to remind himself the next time my boss came by. I stole it; I am not proud of stealing, I believe it is always wrong, and I do not endorse situational ethics. Even though the backroom manager was wrong for holding me accountable for the damage, I was wrong for stealing the photo. I am sorry. In any case, I did it. I replaced his messy photo with a photo of the clean spot.

Nothing ever came of this. I never had a run-in with the backroom manager again; I think I avoided him for the sake of sanity and to not have to answer for the stolen photo. I wish I could have been there when he reached for the replaced photo. Was he bewildered? Did he expect me to do this? Did he care at all, or did he just shrug, mentally check Pepsi off his hit list, and move on to the Milk guy? Did the Coke guy suffer more because of me?

It is over ten years later, and I still remember the incident, I still have the photos. On 8-14-97 I wanted to kill a man. The Marine Corps was still fresh in my psyche then: the pride, the training, the instincts. I was really angry at the time. I was able to keep my wits and suppress my angriest reactions, but it wouldn't have taken much for me to snap and splatter that old crotchety never-has-been.

On 9-27-07, I want to thank that man. Shame on me for my anger and thoughts of how to extend his suffering. He did me a great favor; he brought out the best in me. I would have done a good job in Stanley's Price Chopper over time, and that damage pile would have shrunk slowly, but surely, over several weeks if he had left me alone. By attacking me, he forced me to find a way to do my job better.

Moreover, he gave me solid evidence of things inside of me that many people do not have in such quantity: a great work ethic, personal pride, capacity for work, and high standards. I already knew I had those things; I had proved them before. My Marine Corps service was a certificate in such things. However, this was one more bullet point to help me know who I really was: a proud man who goes above and beyond, who gets "it" done, and who holds himself to a higher standard than those around him.

I keep these photos to remind myself of the kind of work I do. I get tired. I get discouraged. I get my feelings hurt by employers and customers. I get sick of the crap that employees get dumped on them over time. There are times when I feel like a bad employee, or I feel like I am incapable for doing anything right. These photos remind me what I am feeling is a temporary reaction to a temporary situation. The static reality is that I am a great employee who makes the impossible happen and I exceed expectations any time I want to.

Thank you, grumpy old man. You made me better that day. You have made me better every day since with the photo you took. When I remember you, I work harder and do it better. I can only hope that I have that effect on someone else with my life too.

And I want to thank my dad even more. I have had many lessons in work ethics, but without solid fundamentals I never would have gotten "it". My dad did three great things in raising me that have made me a great employee: First, he made me work. I am used to hard work, I have a greater capacity for work, and I expect to work hard because my dad made me work while other kids were playing or sleeping. Second, he made me do the job right; he corrected me when it was wrong and showed me how to fix it. By setting the bar high and teaching me that, "A job worth doing is worth doing right," my dad gave me an advantage over the people around me.

Third, and most important, my dad worked hard himslef. He did well and got promoted at work. He worked hard at home on maintenance and improvement. He worked hard in the community on various projects such as the Jaycees and the zoning board. He worked hard on me, even when I was a hopeless lost-cause. That example makes the difference. Words are one thing, but actions make a lesson stick.

Symbiosis

sym·bi·o·sis (sĭm'bē-ō'sĭs, -bī-)

n. pl. sym·bi·o·ses (-sēz)

1. Biology A close, prolonged association between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.

2. A relationship of mutual benefit or dependence.

("symbiosis." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 22 Sep. 2007. .)

Look at the person on your left. Look at the person on your right. Think of the person you love the most. Now think of the person you hate the most. Now try to think of someone you haven't thought of in years. Now think of me. Everyone one of those people have something in common with the others: we need each other.

Today's Word Of The Day is symbiosis. In the context of this blog, it means that every living human is affected in some way by every other living human being. There are many directions I could go with this, but I am trying to stick to the economic as I build an argument for Corporate Social Responsibility.

I first learned the word symbiosis in an Ecology class. We all first learned the basic principles in a 1st grade science class. Think of a pond. You have lilly pads, insects, big fish, little fish, and various micro-biotic life forms. If you affect one of these groups, the others are affected as well. For instance, if you kill off all the big fish, then the little fish that were once eaten by big fish begin to rapidly reproduce. They eat more insects, which hurts the lilly pads, which hurts the pond scum, which changes the PH balance of the pond, which starts to kill off the little fish. Therefore, even though the big fish may have nothing to do with the pond scum or lilly pads, each is still affected indirectly by the other.

The same principle applies to society. I need you, whomever you are. You also need me. There are many ways we can affect each other, but let's stick to business and economics. If I do not pay my taxes, then there is that much less money paid into the system that has to be made up somewhere else. Conversely, if I have a windfall this year and pay twice as much taxes as I did last year, then there is that much more money in the system that does not need to be collected elsewhere.

If you do not pay your debt and have it written off in bankruptcy, you should realize that money does not disappear. Just like energy cannot be destroyed, neither can money. Your written off debt will result in higher prices for me. Or, perhaps, my company will lay me off to cover their compounded losses. Or perhaps my 401k will take a hit because of written off debt diluting coroporate earnings.

It is popular in our culture to say "follow the money" when we expect it will lead to the source of a conspiracy or scandal. Money is the mascot of economics, so we can follow money to trace the symbiotic nature of our economy. We will start with $20 in your pocket.

You take your $20 and buy a widget. The retail chain from which you buy your widget is located in my city. A penny from your purchase is sent to my city in the form of a sales tax. This penny lessens the burden on my city to match revenue with expenditures; in other words, it lessens the likelihood that they have to raise my property taxes. If you spend enough money over time, it may mean that I get a street re-paved. Thank you.

My spouse may happen to work at that retail store. Part of your $20 paid her salary. It may have even influenced her bonus. Thank you.

That retail store has to purchase their product from somewhere, and they chose the Acme Manufacturing Company. My mutual fund owns shares in Acme, Acme's earnings drive up the stock price, which drives up the value of my mutual fund and overall 401k. Thank you.

Since my 401k is doing well, I take a loan out of it and buy a car. The salesperson whom I purchase from is your cousin, and he owes you $20. He was having a bad month and planned on avoiding you until I walked into the showroom. I hadn't planned on buying a car, but my wife got her bonus and the city repaved the road and my 401k was doing well, so I decided, "Why not?" Therefore, you got your $20 back from your cousin because you spent $20 on a widget.

No, that isn't ridiculous. Money travels all over the place, all the time, and does much more than we realize. Sometimes, what appears bad to me turns out to be good. Sometimes what is bad for me is what is good for you. At some point, we need to realize that we are all linked economically, for better or worse.

Economics is a system of many parts, including each individual, each company, and each governing institution. The tiniest action at the lowest level has an affect the whole, especially because it affects other tiny actions, which affect other tiny actions. This can be demonstrated mathematically in a principle called The Butterfly Effect, but is much more easily demonstrated in the movie of the same name, or in the movie It's a Wonderful Life.

Giving Money Away

A bleeding heart liberal, a serious Christian, or other charitably minded person would look at this principle and think of how we should try to affect the system to benefit the poor, weak, handicapped or incapacitated, unlucky, and other people who are not prospering in the system. I feel these feelings. I often wonder how we can help those who are currently not helping themselves effectively, for whatever reason. Some people concluded that personal involvement and donations are necessary. Others think that the government should take more money from wealthy people and corporations in the form of taxes and give it in various forms and social programs to the poor. Some people seem to think that talking load and writing angrily will solve the problem.

If we continue to consider symbiosis, then we will realize that we cannot just give poor people money from any source. We need to get something of value in return for that money, whether the source is charity or taxes. We need poor people to contribute to the system, not just take from it. In a motor, every part needs to contribute in the same direction at the same speed. If one part works slower (due to dirt or lack of oil) or if a part quits working completely, then the whole motor is slower and requires more energy to work.

Another way of looking at it: Imagine that you and I are on a bicycle built for two. If we both pedal in unison, we have an enjoyable ride. If I stop pedaling, you will have to pedal harder to keep us going. If you pedal backwards and I pedal forwards, we will crash the bike. We need to contribute as equally as possible to have an efficient bicycle ride.

Therefore, giving money to people who have little or none without receiving something from them in return makes for an inefficient system. It would be better if our charitable contribution or tax money resulted in a contribution to the system. This has been the case with many charities and faith-based programs. I benefited personally from Alcoholics Anonymous, and I think it has led me to become a stronger contributor to the system. This has most often not been the case with government programs due to bureaucracy, politics, and corruption; not just in America, but in other countries and the United Nations. That has led me to lean to the right, and distrust the use of government to combat charity.

Poor Help Themselves?

What if we went to the political extreme on the right and just ignore the poor--let them fend for themselves like the rest of us? Well, that would cause a few poor people to get off their ass, get a job, and quit whining. The other 99% would find that impossible for various reasons. Maybe they are too old, or they have a mental handicap, or a physical handicap, or just a long life of abuse and neglect. Whatever the situation, our charities today are not equipped, scoped, or funded to take all of the people who are a drain and turn them into contributors.

There are some who would just write them off. Social Darwinists, students of Nietzsche, and other cold-hearted bastards would say let nature run its course and we can prune the vine. There is a problem with this as well. The people who are unable or unwilling to help themselves as contributors to the economy may be willing and able to commit the crimes that will supply their needs. Why do you think crime rises as property value descends?

For those who did not turn to crime, they would grow sick and eventually die. Where should they die? That is an important consideration. Do we ship them off somewhere to die as a group, or do we step over them as they die on our sidewalk? Seriously, people do not just fade away like Yoda and Obi-Wan Kenobi. They take up space, they leave behind a decomposable structure, and they make a mark on their way out--it make take them months or years to finally die. We need to either prevent their passing or be prepared for an epic mess.

Also, there are spiritual dimensions to symbiosis. If we begin to allow people to starve and freeze, it affects our collective soul. Look at Germany in the 1930's. They started with persecuting wealthy Jews and nationalizing their property, but they ended up killing millions of people based on ethnicity, sexual orientation, and mental handicaps. What would have come next if we hadn't stopped them? Wiping out all left-handed people? Wiping out people who have trouble with math? What is the likelihood that you would end up on the list at some point?

What is more, when your respect for human life dwindles what else does that affect? Your love of art, beauty, the innocence of children, or what? There is an opportunity cost associated with every decision; if we decided to let go of our respect for human life and dignity, I shudder to think of what else we would be giving up.

Can we agree that we, as participants in the economic system and a human society, should make sure that we all benefit as much as possible, and that no one should be left behind? We need not agree on the means at this point, but we should agree on the principle. Now that we have the principle, it is all over but the shouting: We agree to help people economically, can we agree on the need to do so efficiently? Of course, let us do so efficiently; otherwise we will waste our effort, miss our mark, and eventually destroy the benefits of the system. So what is the most efficient method?

Some people liked the combination of Marx, Trotsky, and Lenin, with the end result being that the workers of the world rise up, take the wealth from the rich, and distribute it equally. We are still waiting for that to happen. The Russians rose up in October of 1917 and took from the Czar and nobility; they forgot to give equally to everyone. Apparently, as Orwell eloquently put it in Animal Farm, "Some are more equal than others." It is not likely that a government can avoid the corruption and bureaucracy that drains money and oppresses common people.

It has been attempted since, but we are still waiting for it to be properly implemented. One eyewitness to the October 1917 revolution, Ayn Rand, wrote a brilliant novel that demonstrates what happens when you take from the successful and give to "the people". Like I pointed out in my last post, without the incentives of Capitalism, you lose the benefits that we enjoy from the people seeking incentives.

For instance, there are people working feverishly to cure cancer right now because they know the result will be fortune and fame for them. Without the fortune and fame, how hard would they work? An answer to that can be found at your local fast-food "restaurant": without incentives, the employees do not work very hard--just enough to keep from getting fired. Do not expect that your food will taste good, that you will see a smile, or that the bathroom has been cleaned in this decade.

If we tax the rich and give to the poor, what is the result? Bunker mentality. If you attack the wealth of people, they will seek to protect it. This means they will spend less, take less risks, and be less generous. Therefore, there will be considerable less money in the system to trickle down to everyone else. Now, rather than the inefficiency existing at the bottom with charity, it exists at the top with preservation of wealth.

It is popular and acceptable to hate Bill Gates. However, without Mr. Gates our life would be very different. By developing and selling a version of the BASIC programming language for the 8080 Intel processor, he inspired and empowered many other people in their development of computers, including Steve Wozniak, the inventor of the Apple. Without Bill Gates, there may not have been a Wozniak. Without Wozniak, there would not have been a Steve Jobs. Without Woz and Jobs, what would you view this blog on? Linux? Not hardly; Linux is a direct response to Windows. And most people would never have been able to afford or learn to use Unix. Since then, Mr. Gates has inspired and empowered millions more ideas and people. There is no way to calculate the wealth and quality of life that Mr. Gates has helped us achieve, but we can be sure it is tremendous.

And Mr. Gates needed us. He needed someone to write software, someone to run the machines that packaged the software, and someone to sweep the floors. Each one of those employees was needed. He needed people to buy the software. He needed other programmers at other companies writing games, productivity packages, and other applications. He needed telecommunications companies to lay more fiber, which made computers more useful, which made his software more useful. He needed Intel and Western Digital to develop more resources and expand the capabilities of computer hardware so that his software could do more. He needed people to mine silicon, pump oil, and produce electricity. He needed instructors to learn and then teach others about his software. He needed people like me to fix computers when they break and customize systems for individuals and companies.

Economics is a tale of symbiosis, large and small. Companies need governments, and vice versa. People need corporations, and vice versa. small companies benefit form large companies, vendors and suppliers affect each other, and it all comes down to one person. Any person. Any little action will set off other actions, some which are imperceptible at first.

The basis of historical and current Capitalism does not make any provisions for individuals or organizations who are unable to compete. They are simply chewed up and spit out. Sometimes that is a good thing when it comes to companies. That is always a bad thing when it removes a human being from the game board. What we need to do is to adjust Capitalism somehow so that it encourages Econmic Synergy, an efficient state where everyone is contributing and benefiting in some way.

I argue that Economic Synergy is in every government's, corporation's, and individual's best interest. I also argue that Corporate Social Responsibility is the best and most efficient means to achieve Economic Synergy.

Capitalism is Good and It Saved My Life

I have tried, unsuccessfully, to write a post about the greatness of Capitalism. There is waaaay too much ground to cover; Capitalism is great on so many fronts, and that makes it hard to write less than 10 pages on its introduction. It is hard, but not impossible.

I have deleted 1000 paragraphs in my attempt to talk about the greatness of Capitalism, and why we should embrace it as a future economic system rather than scrap it and try something else. Considering what I wrote in Capitalism Is Bad, there are many opportunities to improve Capitalism. However, the fundamental principles of Capitalism are time-tested. They are like the laws of physics; you may not like them, but that does not make them any less true.

Where I am going with this is to set up a series of posts about how I believe that the future of Capitalism, Democracy, and perhaps Western Civilization, lies in the success of Corporate Social Responsibility. It all starts with the assumptions that Freedom should be a fundamental right for all people, and that Capitalism provides that freedom economically to all who choose it.

If Capitalism is so bad, why not embrace Socialism, or some new -ism that we haven't defined yet? Because Capitalism gives us freedom. I started this series off at the beginning of this month by sharing my thoughts on freedom. Capitalism is equal to economic freedom for me. I cannot imagine a system that provides more freedom with my money. Therefore, in a nutshell, that is what makes Capitalism so great: its provision of freedom.

Look back on history and try to imagine where you would be given your current lineage, gender, race, and religion. If you go back to the eighteenth century or earlier (pre-Enlightenment) you would have lived a very dull, oppressed, and limited life unless you come from a family of nobility. 99% of us are not descended from nobility so we can imagine that at any point in history, we would have been restricted from owning property, borrowing, education, voting, moving to another town, whom you could marry, where you could travel, what occupation you worked at, etc... And I am talking about most white men here. If you were a woman or a man of another color back then, I shudder to think of your life.

So many things have contributed to our current freedoms and quality of life. None has contributed more than Capitalism, I would argue. When I take a week off of work and travel away from my home to a destination of my choice, I take it for granted. Had I been born in Ukraine in 1700, I would neither have the option to leave work nor to leave my town. Had I been born anywhere in 1600, I would not have had a choice of who I worked for or what my occupation was.

If I had been born in 1974 in South America or Africa, chances are I would still not have the options and liberties I enjoy today. Had I been born yesterday into an "untouchable" family in India, I would never have the hope of owning property, working a meaningful job, or marrying the hottie that I am currently married to.

The fundamental basis of Capitalism is market theory: Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" that efficiently rights the wrongs without human intervention. I know, many people think that market theory is not as efficient as we would like to believe. Those are all people who have a stake in managing the economy and would be out of a job if we depended solely on an "Invisible Hand". Look at the Soviet Union if you want to see how managing an economy can bring you nothing but woe. The market contains too many unknown variable for any group of humans to regulate efficiently. When it is left alone, it regulates itself.

Market forces work better when there are more participants and less regulators. As we continue to add people to the world market, we continue to see prosperity grow. That is why it was in the best interests of the wealthy European families to allow more people to participate in the market economy once it began; those wealthy families that participated in the market continued to prosper as the market grew. The families that squandered their wealth and resources and depended on their "birthright" to get by rather than exercising their privileges in the market quickly lost their wealth, land, titles, and places in society.

Capitalism has a tendency to bring out the best in some people and the worst in others. We have laws to deal with the worst people. The best people would not be the best in any other economic system. By giving people the opportunity to own, control, and profit from their creations, we have provided an awesome incentive--one that can not be reproduced in any other system.

Let's say that the year is 1976. I have just graduated from an advanced Scientific University in Soviet Socialist Russia. I am a math wizard, a creative and energetic person, and I have the inkling of an idea for connecting computers and sharing information. It is going to take many hard years of my life to develop this idea, write the software, invent the non-existant hardware I envision, fight the political battles, scrounge up money, convince hordes of people to help...And it will all be owned and controlled by "the People"--the State.

I have the opportunity to invent something that is potentially life-changing and history making. I have the talent, I have the knowledge to get started, and I can probably pull the whole thing off. On the other hand, I could just be satisfied with a secure job for 8 hours and not endure the hard work, frustration, and heartbreak as "the People" take my invention and use it for something I am opposed to. I could just do what I am told for 8 hours a day, play around in my leisure, and live a stable, comfortable life with my family and friends.

Which would you do? Would you altruistically spend your blood, sweat, tears, and years on an invention and give it away for the good of humanity? Or would you just ignore the idea, letting it die quietly in the back of your mind as you enjoy the simple pleasures of life?

Let's look at the costs and benefits: if you develop the idea, you lose years of your life and in the end you get nothing back except (perhaps) a warm fuzzy feeling and a portrait of yourself hung in the hallway of the science institute. On the other hand, you can receive accolades, respect, and comfort from just doing your job well in a Socialist society, and you can spend more time with family and fun if you are not chasing down all the things you need for your machine.

Now assume that it is 1976 and you are Steve Wozniak, Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates. You are a college dropout with a good idea. You may not be the most talented programmer or engineer, but you are good enough to invent something that people want to buy. You could remain in your stable job at HP designing calculators or you could face the frustration, heart-break, and hustle of selling your idea.

Again, you are faced with a choice: do you live a life of obscurity and moderate means or do you put in the effort, make a $100 million overnight, gain widespread fame, have people offer you thousands to come and speak to them, have people name their kids after you, have powerful executives take notes when you share your opinion, and have the opportunity to sell your next idea for more money and less effort?

That is Capitalism. In China, you see people working furiously to copy products that already exist so that they can make a few bucks. No one is allowed to be rich and powerful if they are not a communist official, so no one actually invents anything. This is a people who are unbelievably well-educated, they have a looooong history, and there is money everywhere. However, they know that if they were ever to let out a great idea, it would no longer belong to them. Without an incentive for greatness, we will not see greatness come from China. We may see more lead-painted baby products and poisonous dog food, but not the cure for cancer or a new rocket engine that approaches light speed.

In Capitalist America, you have people throwing out every idea they can to see which one sticks. Everyday, people who were born into inopportune circumstances are finding that they can be rewarded for their hustle and creativity. Even if you are a minority, poor, illiterate, and illegitimate trouble-making slacker, if you can play sports or rhyme in a way that other people are willing to pay money for, you can be rich, famous, and relatively powerful. A self-imposed ignoramus like College Drop-out Kanye West can make money, scoop up the finest honeys, and insult the President of the United States on live TV in front of millions of people...and get talked about for years afterwards.

Therefore, despite the many ways that Capitalism is Bad, it has a fundamental underpinning that we must cling to: the freedom of the individual to profit from their efforts. First of all, it is only right that if "it" is yours, then you should enjoy the benefits and make the decisions regarding "it". Secondly, there is no stronger motivation we know of to inspire greatness in people than the allure of fame, fortune, and power.

Capitalism has allowed, and even encouraged, some bad things in our society. However, almost ever good thing that we enjoy is the result of Capitalism. The benefits of Capitalism inspires scientists, engineers, entertainers, and almost everyone else to new heights.

I know that for myself, I would never have educated myself if I didn't expect it to lead to future wealth, power, and status for me. Mainly, my education provides me with more options and control over future employment. In addition, I am a better employee due to my education. I am a better communicator. I understand more about business dynamics and I understand more about the world around me. Ultimately, I probably make better decisions due to my higher education. I am also in a better position to do something great, if all the other stars fall into place. In that case, my employer is better off because of my education. That means that my coworkers, managers, shareholders, and customers benefit from my education. My education not only improves me, it enables me to improve the society around me. And that is all the result of Capitalism.

Had this been a Socialist or other type of economy, I would not have read one book without naked pictures in it. Without the hope of reward, I would have just done what I had to do to stay out of trouble. Sure, I might have done a little to improve my position, but very little. If I had the brains and talent of Woz or Thomas Edison, I expect I would have been happy to hold a better job than most other people in my Socialist society, and I would have taken up fishing or Chess to wile away my freetime.

As an alcoholic, I can tell you right now what I would have done if I had come of age behind the iron curtain. There is no way I would have chosen industry over booze if that industry resulted in nothing more than callouses on my hand. Without the hope of owning assets, retiring in comfort, and building a better life for my progeny, I am sure that Vodka would have won out.

Therefore, Capitalism saved my life.

A Second Mother's Day

I ended up with this box of photos that is marked with my name but contains very little of my stuff. It is mostly full of old photos, a few of my Dad's old report cards (perhaps that will be my next post) and rocks from my sister's head. I went through the box just to see what was in there, and most of it is yawning material. However, there were a few gems that I hadn't seen in a long time.

The photo below is of my mom from around 1970. Is it weird if I say she was a hottie back then? I wasn't even a twinkle in anyone's eye yet, so I will venture to say not. This is my favorite picture of her. I am going to steal it, frame it, and display it prominently in my home office. My mom has received a lot of things in her life that she didn't deserve, and especially from me. The least I can do right now is counter that by taking a beautiful picture of her from out of a box and displaying it proudly.

I like to think of this blog as part of the larger Internet, regardless of how insignificant it is in the grand scheme of things. Therefore, when I post here it is to make some improvement of the Internet, rather than just to inconvenience some electrons and take up virtual space.

There are all kinds of pictures on the Internet that make the Internet worse off; perhaps by honoring my mother and displaying a nice picture will do two things: balance out the crap that is out there and bring me some Internet karma.

Which reminds me that I re-discovered an oldie but a goodie as I surfed a few poetry websites recently. This is a great, classic poem that may have become cliche to some. That is unfortunate, because we cannot honor our wives and mothers enough for the work they do.

I just changed the title of this post from "My Mom" to what you see now because I realized that is what I am trying to say here. I am declaring a second Mother's Day for 2007 because one just isn't enough; at least not for the women in my life. If you are a mother, thank you for all you have done. If you have a mother, call her; better yet, send her something. As for me, I am going to send my mom two little kids from my house and take my wife out to see that new Jodie Foster movie. No really, I think that is what my mom really wants.

The classic poem to honor Mothers:

The Hand That Rocks the Cradle is The Hand That Rules the World

William Ross Wallace

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blessings on the hand of women!

Angels guard its strength and grace,

In the palace, cottage, hovel,

Oh, no matter where the place;

Would that never storms assailed it,

Rainbows ever gently curled;

For the hand that rocks the cradle

Is the hand that rules the world.

Infancy's the tender fountain,

Power may with beauty flow,

Mother's first to guide the streamlets,

From them souls unresting grow--

Grow on for the good or evil,

Sunshine streamed or evil hurled;

For the hand that rocks the cradle

Is the hand that rules the world.

Woman, how divine your mission

Here upon our natal sod!

Keep, oh, keep the young heart open

Always to the breath of God!

All true trophies of the ages

Are from mother-love impearled;

For the hand that rocks the cradle

Is the hand that rules the world.

Blessings on the hand of women!

Fathers, sons, and daughters cry,

And the sacred song is mingled

With the worship in the sky--

Mingles where no tempest darkens,

Rainbows evermore are hurled;

For the hand that rocks the cradle

Is the hand that rules the world.

The Marines are Winning in Iraq (and so is everyone else).

In October, 1992, I began my training as a United States Marine at Marine Recruit Depot San Diego, California. I then attended Marine Combat Training and Rifleman training at the School of Infantry at Camp Pendleton, California. I then reported to Marine Corps Base Hawaii (then Kaneohe Marine Corps Air Station) for service as an infantry grunt in 2 platoon, India Company, 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines, 3rd Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Expeditionary Brigade.

From October, 1992 to October, 1996 I was wholly devoted to war. I studied how to kill as a team and how to kill as an individual. I studied how to kill with indirect fire, volume of fire, controlled bursts, and single shots. I studied the use of aircraft, motorized vehicles, artillery, mortar, missiles, heavy arms, and small arms. I studied how to treat myself and others who have been hit with conventional, nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. We learned how to control civilians, prisoners, and other uniformed services, how to respond to terrorist incidents, how to operate in snow, jungle, desert, urban terrain, and on the open sea.

It was a four-year, advanced education that I will never use. We came awfully close, but from 1992 to 1996 we were never called on by our nation to respond to a combat situation. I was prepared and enthusiastic about war, but I am also thankful I never had to go.

I miss the Marine Corps and a part of me wishes I was in Iraq. I also enjoy my civilian freedoms and love coming home to my family every day. It is a minor, inner turmoil for me. I have my ways of supporting my Marines in Iraq. One way is by following the 3rd Marine Regimental units as they rotate in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Each Battalion has its own web page. On this page, the Commanding Officers communicate important information monthly to the families, they post photos of smiling Marines in theatre, they celebrate promotions and awards, and they post a memorial to the Marines who have fallen in service to their country.

This last item is something that affects me the most. As the units begin to lose men, I feel it--even though they are all total strangers. Each one of these guys look like guys I served with, or they look like me. They are fathers, sons, boyfriends, husbands, friends, bunkmates, and drinking-buddies.

It used to be that while a battalion was in Iraq, they would update their site every month with all of the above, but most notably with several fallen Marines. I always winced when I clicked on the link for Fallen Marines every month, but I had to do it. It reminded me of who the real heroes in this world are, and they deserve to be remembered by as many people as possible. The people of Iraq should be erecting a gold statue to each and every American who falls in their country.

Lately, I wince when I click on the links and I am usually pleasantly surprised to find that the roster of fallen Marines has not grown. I have also noticed that the daily news is not continuously reporting that a roadside bomb or sniper killed another soldier, sailor, or Marine. It seems the tide has turned in Iraq.

I want to make sure that this is said more often. Even though the news is not full of death tolls, it is still very negative about Iraq. There seems to be a lot of people who want Iraq and Vietnam to be synonymous. They are not; Iraq and Vietnam have huge differences between them. The biggest difference is that we have already won in Iraq, now we are just cleaning up. Victory was never so clear in Vietnam.

Last night, I finally had an evening to be a vegetable for a while; life has been incredibly busy lately. I intended to sit down and laugh at something mindless; I selected NBC's The Office from the menu. It was preempted by a message from President George W. Bush. The one time I have to relax, and my opportunity is thwarted by a president with whom I have several issues and disappointments.

It isn't often that our President broadcasts live so I listened rather than raged. I heard him say that we are winning, that the situation is improving, that the commanders have recommendations that he is following, and that he is interested in limiting our role, rather than maintaining or expanding our presence.

That matches up with my independent observation. It was sickening to see how our men and women were piling up for several years. It is motivating and encouraging to see that we now have the upper hand. My only concern now is whether the Iraqis can keep the upper hand as we send Americans home.

I think many people are not convinced that we are winning in Iraq. I think most of these people are unwilling to believe that we are capable of winning. These people are either hung up on memories of Vietnam, hung up on their hatred of Bush, or are simply dedicated to pacifism. All three states are understandable, but none of them are based on reality.

President Bush pointed out how we are winning in Anbar province. I had noticed that too. Anbar is the largest and most difficult area to control; however, through focus and intelligent strategy, our military heroes are accomplishing the impossible mission. The Shiites and Sunnis may not be skipping through the streets holding hands, but at least the killing has been curbed and the cooperation with Americans and Iraqis has become safer and more common. They are progressing and reaping the benefits.

Has anyone heard of Fallujah? The first time I remember hearing of Fallujah was when several civilian contractors took a wrong turn going through Fallujah. They were ambushed, burned, shot, beaten, dragged, and hung from a bridge. The next time I heard of it was when we warned every civilian to leave the town and then swept through with several units, including the Marine units 1/3 and 3/5, of whom I have knowledge, history, and interest in.

I have read a little bit about Fallujah from numerous sources since then. By all accounts, Fallujah was always known as a place for crazies, even among Iraqis. If we were going to have trouble anywhere in Iraq, Fallujah would be the first place for it. It was expected that we would never have an easy time in Fallujah.

Recently, my battalion and America's Battalion, 3/3, arrived at Camp Fallujah and began operations. They are on patrol on foot, in vehicles, and on Helos. That knowledge made me wince; India 3/3 at the heart of Crazy Central. However, it appears that Fallujah is a very different place today. Here is what the Battalion Commander, LtCol Nate Nastase , has to say about the feeling in Fallujah:

Engaging the Iraqi Populace: While we discussed and trained hard for this aspect of the counter-insurgency fight during our pre-deployment work-up, nothing could have prepared us for the dramatic sea change we inherited upon our arrival. To put it simply, the local Iraqis have “come out of the woodwork” to join us in defeating the terrorists. For those of us who have been here before, this is a dramatic turn of events for the better. ... After years of murder and intimidation at the hands of the terrorists, the average Iraqis have said “Enough’s enough.” Our common goals have converged in a way that leaves little room for the insurgency to continue. And the attitude of “America’s Battalion” is contributing to the overall success of the mission.

When I read columns from the New York Times, I get the mental image of a melancholy foot patrol dragging their rifles behind them as they dejectedly wait to meet their inevitable fate. Or I get the image of men who put on a stoic face for the camera and then when the cameras are put away they bash Bush and wish they had never been tricked into joining the military for college money. If any single veteran (or parent of a veteran) speaks out against the war, their face is soon filled with microphones. Yet if any of the hundreds of thousands of men and women who have served in Iraq want to explain why they think the mission is important and winnable, they are usually left alone with crickets chirping.

Not enough people who control our national message are willing to portray a positive message regarding Iraq. I am tired of it. I want to win. I want to think positive. I want to be proud of my country. I want to face a future of peace and prosperity. Do we really need to skew the message to make it doom and gloom, with America as the oppressive loser? Do we really need to force a loss so that Obama or Clinton-2 can get elected?

I want to post the September message from India Company's Commanding Officer, Captain John Allsup, in its entirety. His messages are well written and organized, succinct, and gives a feeling that the Marines and Sailors under his command are proud volunteers who are willingly and enthusiastically accomplishing their mission. Every message from commanders in Iraq will necessarily be upbeat and optimistic; what kind of fruitcake would write home to his subordinates' families with doom and gloom? Even so, it is hard to fake sincerity, and word choice is important. If you go to the 3rd Marine Regiment's website and read the messages from all the commanders, you will find them all upbeat. However, you will not hear the same message. Each commander has written his own personal message; this is not a directed effort containing the same key phrases and vocabulary.

After several years of following individual units through their deployments, I have concluded that the commanding officer's message is a better measurement of the attitude in Iraq than the 9 o'clock news. I do not subscribe to the Liberal Media Bias Conspiracy Theory but I do get the feeling that we are getting more politics than news when it comes to Iraq.

Capt Jessup's Message:

Greetings from Camp Fallujah Iraq to all the friends and family members of India Company’s Marines and Sailors,

The company is currently conducting Civil Military Operations in our area of operations southeast of the city of Fallujah. Things are pretty quiet in our area and the Marines and Sailors have accomplished much in providing the citizens here with security, basic essential services (power, water, sewage, etc.), schools and a governing body. What our company is accomplishing here is the end state of all Coalition Forces in Iraq: to help the Iraqi people achieve independence from relying on Coalition Forces. Once the people here can provide their own security they can begin rebuilding their nation. Your Marines and Sailors are performing magnificently and each man is helping to achieve these things.

Since getting here we have been extremely busy. We are nearing the end of our first month and the Marines and Sailors have adapted to the environment and the separation from their families without any major complications. It is regularly greater than 120 degrees so everyone is looking forward to cooler days in the fall. I am happy to report that no one in the company has been injured or seriously ill. A few cases of heat rash and some heat exhaustion have been the greatest extent of our injuries. I am confident that because of their training and attitude this will remain the case throughout the remainder of our deployment. My compliments to all of our junior leaders and corpsmen who have done so much to ensure everyone stays healthy.

Many of the wives and girlfriends have been asking exactly what it is that we are doing day to day over here. I mentioned in the beginning of this newsletter what the mission of the company is, but I did not talk about the tasks that the Marines and Sailors are accomplishing. Without getting too specific I can report that the Marines and Sailors are doing a lot of foot patrols with many various missions (the heat and heavy gear make this extremely difficult). Many of the patrols, as mentioned earlier, are helping the population of our area rebuild their communities. Your Marines and Sailors here love the children. It makes me proud to watch them with big goofy smiles on their faces handing out toys, soccer balls, books, crayons and candy to a group of children. Then five minutes later they are all business - grim faces constantly alert for any sign of danger. Our Marines understand their mission here. “The Iraqi people are not our enemy but our enemy hides among them.” They balance friendliness and watchfulness with magnificent maturity. They are the true protectors and friends of a group of people who have endured countless years of terror and strife. I am so proud of each and every one of them – you should be too. Regardless of what you see and hear on the news, know that your Marines and Sailors are succeeding here. They are winning. They are making a difference.

Many families are asking what they can send in care packages. In case you did not know, we have a PX here so many of the basic necessities are available. Batteries, toiletries, snacks, and even electronics can be found in abundance. However, packages are always nice to receive so I am sure anything you send will be much appreciated. It typically takes 10 days for mail to reach us, but there is an alternative for letters and pictures. If you have access to the internet, go to Google and search for “Moto Mail,” go to the web site, create an account, and you can type letters and even include pictures which will reach your Marine or Sailor within 24-48 hours. Unfortunately it does not work from us to you. As the Marines spend most of their time out in the community and do not have access to e-mail this may be the best way of dropping them a line.

I am extremely pleased with the teamwork, camaraderie, mental toughness, bravery, and self-discipline the Marines and Sailors have been displaying during these past few weeks. Their aggressive warrior-spirit feeds off of the confidence they received from outstanding training, and has transformed them into disciplined professionals. During the long months ahead, this very spirit is what will sustain them and drive them to accomplish great things for each other, for the Iraqi people, and for all of you. In my last newsletter I stated that your Marines and Sailors will make a significant impact on the current world situation and as such theirs is the greatest of responsibilities. This has held true and will continue to hold true in the months to come. They are the finest fighting men in the world – they are highly trained, truly motivated, and dedicated to a higher cause of world citizenship. They are the defenders of the weak, the helpless, and the abused. I could not be prouder of them as men, as citizens, or as Marines. I am truly honored to serve them and I hope that you are as proud of their character and accomplishments.

I have written a few of you letters and I will be sending more as time permits. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly (snail mail or e-mail) with any questions or concerns you may have. I am here to serve your Marines and I will never be too busy to address any concerns their families may have. I also want to take this opportunity to thank all of you for your overwhelming support of the company and everything you have done for your Marines, Sailors and for the unit as a whole. Being a family man myself I know how difficult this deployment is for all of you. My thoughts and prayers will continue to be with you and the Marines and Sailors of the company. God Bless and Semper Fidelis.

Capt John Allsup

India Company, 3/3

Last updated 6 September 2007

A Good Blog Is Hard To Find

I have tried to find blogs by people like me who are writing about things I am interested in. I haven't spent all day at it because I don't have a lot of time. However, it should be easier than my experience is proving to be. I am having trouble finding blogs that are personal. When I search on Google Blog Search or Technorati I run into one business blog after another. I am not against businesses having blogs, but why is it that when something gets popular on the Internet it ends up clogged with garbage from websites that are trying to sell something.

This experience is a departure from my post on Capitalism is Bad. In this case, Capitalism on the Internet ends not in Corporations but in individuals creating marketing chaos. Have you checked your email lately? How do those Viagra people keep getting my address? I have never ordered, and never needed, Viagra, Cialis, Enlargement, pictures of your ex, am online mortgage, or any of the other crap that I get bombarded with on the Internet regularly. Everybody should have an equal opportunity to make their fortune online in this brave, new Flat World. Even so, I can't find the things I want and need because of all the fake and blatant links out there.

I cannot imagine a world without Capitalism; I would fight to the death before that ever happens. However, I can imagine an Internet without Capitalism. I don't know how it would be implemented, but it would be a beautiful thing.

Anyhow, I have difficulty finding interesting, personal blogs regarding my interests specifically or interesting topics in general; I find a lot of sales blogs, outdated blogs, and blogs in Spanish (which is fine, except I can only read 10% of the page).

I found a good one yesterday. When a person left a comment on my blog, I went looking for theirs. I was pleasantly surprised to find a blog written by their dog, and it is funny. The dog is owned by a fellow Marine, the dog is a boxer like one I grew up with, and I love anthropomorphizing my own dogs, so that brings it close to home for me.

The author is funny, but they also do something important when they take the dog's perspective: they see the world differently. A few weeks ago I posted the word of the day as Cynomorphic, which is to view the world with canine ideas. This blog reminds me of how valuable that can be sometimes.

The dog makes the statements such as "i don't like the third row of the car. what happened? why don't you roll the windows down back there?" I forget that my dogs have preferences, and that little things make a big difference in their lives. There really is no point in me keeping dogs if I am not going to improve their lives, so assuming cynomorphism occasionally will make a big difference in at least two lives. Who knows, I may even learn something that will improve my own life.

A Day In The Life

My Sister and the Rocks in Her Head

I really feel the need to balance my last post with one that celebrates and praises Capitalism. However, I want to do it right, and that requires time. I haven't got time right now to do it right, so let me just pop in here and say this: I have proof that my sister had rocks in her head. And yes, I will share this evidence. (Those with ADD can scroll down now, the rest of you will wait patiently for the setup.)

In 1984, my family lived in Park City, IL, just north of Chicago. On December 23rd of that year, the weather was mild for some reason (shut up, Mr. Gore) and my sister and I were driving my mother crazy. She explained that if we wanted to live to see Christmas, we would go to the park and stay there for at least an hour (the time it takes my mother to consume 2 vodka-tonics, I assume). So off we went to the park, about a half-mile away.

I was 10 years old, my sister was seven. When my own kids reach this age, I doubt I will feel comfortable sending them 100 yards away, let alone a half-mile. In 1984, it was common for kids to run around all day long, returning home only for food and serious bathroom needs. We didn't have video games that could be played all day long, we had three channels (four if you had aluminum foil, long arms, and good balance) and there was very little fear of kidnapping. Of course, if anyone had kidnapped my sister and I, they would have regretted it quickly. We weren't much to look at but we sure were bad.

Anyhow, we are at the park and alone. Who knows where the other kids were that day. We were bored, and it was too soon to return home. This is when bad things happen, right? Boredom has got to be the most dangerous state for anyone, especially morons like my kid sister and I.

This playground did not have wood chips to break your fall like most playgrounds today; it had pea-gravel. Tiny little rocks at a playground: freaking brilliant, huh? Man, we used to whip hand-fulls of that pea-gravel at each other all the time. I would love to meet the Einstein who came up with that idea.

Oh yeah, we're talking about my stupidity, not someone else's. I had this idea to launch pea-gravel and make it rain. My sister would scoop as much pea-gravel as she could onto the seat of the see-saw (teeter-totter, whatever.) I would then push down as hard as I could on the other side of the see-saw, launching the pea-gravel into the air. Sounds like clean, harmless fun, right?

I loved to make my sister mad. I lived for it. I was addicted to it. Some people have to get a crack rock, I had to make my sister mad. In this case, my sister was serious about getting enough rocks onto the seat of the see-saw before I launched the payload. Therefore, I figured I would get a kick out of launching before she was done. As my sister will tell you to this day: Big brothers suck.

I launched as hard as I could after she had scooped only a handful of rocks onto the see-saw. Unfortunately, her head was directly in the path of the see-saw. I thwacked her hard, right in the forehead. Blood was coming out immediately, as were the inhuman screams and wailing.

I felt bad immediately. I felt guilty. I was afraid of the trouble I would be in. I was panicked: home was a long walk with two bikes, a bleeding, wailing sister, and a truckload of guilt. We made it part of the way; someone called my mom while we were en route and she came flying down the road in the car.

She took my sister to the emergency room. They found a piece of gravel under the skin of her forehead, and another identical piece in her shoe. They put both under tape to use as evidence if ever the need should arise.

My sister recovered fine. It left a tiny scar that is probably gone today. Pictures from Christmas '84 has her head wrapped in gauze, and to this day she will not go to the park with me. Other than that, we were very lucky. Any brain damage she has was probably there to begin with.

I was going through a box of keepsakes tonight and found the rocks mounted in tape. I don't know how I ended up with them, but they make a nice blog entry in a pinch. Here is evidence that my sister had rocks in her head:

Capitalism is Bad

In my continuing series on Capitalism and Corporate Social Responsibility, I want to make two points. First, I want to point out how Capitalism has a horrible effect on our society, and its weaknesses as an economic system. The next time I approach this topic, I will point out how Capitalism is the best system we know of to manage an economy, and all the benefits that I see us receiving from Capitalism. In the future, I think that a solution to soften the blow of Capitalism and enjoy the benefits simultaneously will arrive with the proliferation of Stakeholder Theory concepts and the paradigm of Corporate Social Responsibility.

In my mind, the natural result of Capitalism is the rise of Corporations. What else would we end up with? In any system, people will find a way to band together to synergize, hide their own weaknesses, and defeat their greatest threats. A corporation is the best way to do this in a Capitalist society. A small business owner may need to be a good accountant, manager, visionary, janitor, laborer, purchaser, and salesperson on any given day. In a corporation, you can always say, "That's not my job." Also, a corporation can buy out or eliminate its competition; a small-business owner or individual is very limited in their power compared to a monolith such as Wal-Mart.

Therefore, Capitalism and Corporation will stand for the same thing in this post. Technically, each can exist without the other to some extent, but they go hand-in-hand like peanut butter and chocolate in the real world. I will use the example of the Capitalist Corporation to prove that Capitalism is bad.

The two main points of Capitalism is to own things that are worth money, and to make more money than you had yesterday. What better way to do so than with a corporation? You own stock in a corporation; the shares you own should rise in value. Also, you probably earn quarterly income from the dividends of profits. To boot, you also get a say in the business; each share you own is a vote in shareholder decisions. If you work for the corporation as well as own shares in that company, then you can directly profit from your activities.

Capitalism is Bad for The Environment

However, Corporations are groups of people whose interests are often not aligned with the interests of individuals or other groups of people. I think the example that is Hollywood's favorite is the corporation who impacts the environment. Protecting the environment does not seem to help profit margins directly in most cases (not until the EPA or KCTV5 shows up). In fact, when corporations damage the environment it is usually because it is the cheapest and easiest way to finish their product. A method that is less pollutive would usually eat up profits, raise the unit cost, or make the manufacturing time longer.

Therefore, Capitalism does not have a built-in protection for our environment. If the choice is clean water and air or higher profits, Capitalism will naturally choose profits. Any company that willingly protects or cleans up the environment is responding to an additional influence; the paradigm of pure Capitalism would not inspire a manager, board of directors, or group of shareholders to willingly give up profits for the sake of the environment.

Capitalism is Bad for Employees

There was once a paradigm among most employees; once they got a job with a good corporation, they would work there loyally until they retired. They may be able to take their experience to another company for more money, but that would violate an inner value of loyalty, it would be a big hassle, and it would look bad if they did a lot of job-hopping. Today, the opposite is true. Union jobs tend to retain some loyalty, as do government and education jobs. As for most of the corporate world, it is actually better to job-hop than to wait for a promotion.

The reason that job-hopping is more prevalent today is because companies are so much less loyal to their employees. Some companies will lay-off every quarter that they lose money because lay-offs look great on financial statements. In the way that capitalism is displayed on paper, a lay-off is a method of cost cutting and it hides how much money a company actually lost. If they can plug the leak before they run out of employees, the business world will never see how bad the business was doing. This protects the stock price; in a corporation, protecting and growing the stock price is the ONLY thing. Profits make the stock price rise, losses make the stock price fall. Managers who make the stock rise get fantastic bonuses. Managers who do not grow the stock price are quickly discarded. Layoffs may limit or level a stock price drop, so managers will protect their job by axing underlings.

My grandfather was a decorated hero in World War II. He came home and worked for a soda distributer for years in middle-management. He did well, and he remained loyal. I am sure that there were many great jumping-off points for him into competitor businesses or related industries. However, he was loyal and intended to work for the same company as long as he was able.

He was laid-off. He wasn't fired for incompetence, mis-management, or dishonesty. He was laid off because his raises over time made him expensive. In Capitalism, the object is to maximize profit; If you can use a cheaper machine, you do swap out the old machine without a thought. People are not people in corporations, they are human resources. They are a number; their profit and expenses can be measured on a balance sheet just like any other asset or liability.

My grandfather never recovered from being laid off. That company cannot be blamed for his divorce, alcoholism, heart-disease, depression, or lethargy. However, the company's actions sure didn't help. They had no idea what position they placed him in. They don't care that a man woke up one morning intending to keep helping his company make money as he had done for so many years, and found out that he was being rejected and discarded. They never factored into the equation how this would impact his pride and sense of self-worth, nor did they consider what hard questions he would ask but never be able to answer.

The managers who picked his position for elimination did not know what his wife and kids would think. They didn't consider what savings he had versus his obligations and how he had never considered having to do without their paycheck. They also didn't consider the fact that at his age, it was pretty much too late to get hired by another company at similar status and pay, nor would it be easy to start all over. The only consideration that a corporation can make when it comes to people is how much they can save or profit.

Even while you are employed, you are not always likely to treated well. A Capitalist Corporation will probably want the most talented and dedicated employees it can acquire, but only to a certain extent. That extent is based on cost versus benefit. You may be the best janitor on the planet: thorough, knowledgeable, dedicated, creative, friendly, and unfailingly honest. Even so, a janitor is a cost, not a source of profit. Therefore, he or she can only make so much money.

Therefore, a corporation will only treat you as well as they have to, and give you the least that they can get away with. The point of capitalism is making money, not making employees happy and healthy. If your job puts your safety at risk, will capitalism naturally force a company to protect you? Of course not, that is why we have OSHA and unions. A capitalist company will protect its money; therefore, they will protect their employees to avoid fines, lawsuits, picket-lines, and bad press. Take away the government agencies and regulations, the right to assemble, and freedom of the press and you will get less face masks, gloves, training, rope, and ventilation systems. Why spend money on protecting a human resource when there are 108,700,981 people in Mexico waiting to take their place?

Capitalism is Bad for Quality

What is the point of capitalism? Maximize the money that shareholders make by maximizing the corporation's profits and minimizing the costs. Therefore, if the shirt I am making can be made with $5 of cloth or the thinner $4 cloth, why would I use the more expensive stuff? Have you noticed how hard it is to find decent underwear and socks, especially at Wal-Mart or Target? Even the expensive, deluxe, premium line is crappy. I have found that you need to spend $8 on one pair of socks at the Gap or a similar place to get something that lasts a year. You can get a pair of pants that look nice off the rack and fit well, but their color fades after 3 washings because the dye is cheaper.

It is hard to find a decent item for a decent price because the trend must always be higher profits. A product may start out with great quality once it has sold for a while, the product manager will be under pressure to increase the profit margin on that item. The easiest way to do this is to cut costs and cut corners. You use cheaper ink, you use less threads, you move the manufacturing to China where cheap lead paint is available. If the product manager does not cut costs and maximize profits, they will not be promoted; they will be replaced. Therefore, why not lower the quality? The product is known to be reliable and durable by now, so no one will notice when we switch from glass to plastic.

Capitalism does not ensure that we get items that are high-quality. It ensures that we get items that are good enough. Have you seen the headlines lately? We have had baby items with lead in them, toothpaste and dog food full of poison, beef full of god-knows-what, spinach with anthrax, car tires that blow-out and kill people, and laptop batteries that self-ignite. These are the result of organizations trying to save money because that is how the game is played. If the name of the game was "Highest Quality Wins", then these events would have triggered riots, dishonored executives falling on their swords, and government figures promising swift and brutal punishment. Instead, it is taken in stride. There are a few press releases, a product recall, and it is forgotten. Firestone, Phillip Morris, and Mattel get to live to fight another day. Somewhere, a Chinese factory may have to change its name and suffer a decline in sales for a month, but the business world is rarely shocked by these scandals. There seems to be an acceptance that this is our cross to bear, a natural by-product of business.

Wake up America! It is not natural to have children chewing on lead-painted toys, not to have your dog die from poisoned dog food! What is this, Soviet Russia circa 1932? If you pay $10 for jockey shorts and do not engage in mud-wrestling, you should expect all of the stitching to hold up for months, even years. You should be able to expect that $100 shoes will remain glued or stitched to their soles, especially if they are not used in marathons. I spent over $1000 on an exercise machine earlier this year; I just found a key bolt broken off. A metal bolt is broken on a mid-grade machine? I didn't buy the Wal-mart special; I went to a specialty store and bought the top-of-the-line offered there. I would have had to be a national fitness chain to buy a better model, I think. But they saved .5 cents per bolt on this cheaper alloy and I pay the price in safety and hassle. Grrrrrrr!

As part of my job, I repair computers. When my customer buys a computer from me, they expect to be able to use it at their convenience to make money. We buy wholesale from IBM and Dell, two well-known manufacturers. We should expect a reliable computer right? I often have to replace motherboards and hard drives because they are now made to be cheap, not reliable. This means that customers have to do without this computer for the time it takes to get the parts and me onsite; it also means that they lose data often. Why? Should we expect that when we spend $800-$1200 on a computer it will fail occasionally? Wake up, people! There are computers made in 1980 that still run, but there is no way that a computer made in 2007 will be running in 2027.

Capitalism requires that we find the cheapest people and components for a product. It also requires that we provide the lowest level of customer service possible. Try this: for dinner tonight, go to a new, small, ma-and-pa type restaurant. As soon as you walk in the door, they will bug the crap out of you trying to make you happy. They want you to have a great experience, to come back again, and to tell your friends. If they don't do this, they will be out of business in 3 months.

Next, go to a corporate, fast food place for dinner. I dare you to try and find someone who cares about your experience. At Ma-and-Pa's, if you ask for a spoon you will get Ma running from the kitchen with a clean and polished spoon of every size, take your pick. At the Corporate Clown Burger, they will point at tiny, plastic-wrapped sporks across the restaurant and tell you to get it yourself. When you do, you will find they are sticky and you don't want to know why. If you complain, you will get more attitude than ten Paris Hilton's in a jail cell with no Perrier.

Just put yourself in management's shoes: Your job is to make money. How do you make money? By getting as many people into your business as possible and getting them to spend as much of their money as you can while spending as little of your money in the process. The best way to do this is to treat your customers like cattle, buy cheap crap, pretend it is great, and charge as much as possible. That is Capitalism in a nut shell from my vantage point.

Capitalism Encourages Dishonesty

There will always be dishonest people in any system. Capitalism encourages dishonest people. If my goal is to maximize profit and I can do so dishonestly without getting caught, why not? I would need to have a spiritual or philosophical system to keep me honest, as well as an effective government, because capitalism will only encourage me to get away with as much as possible.

Capitalism encourages dishonest marketing. I challenge you to watch a kid's show for one commercial break. It will make you sick, if Capitalism hasn't already desensitized you into a hollow shell. As an experienced adult, I know that this crap is not going to work as promised, nor be as entertaining as the 6 year-old actors pretend. My kids will only gain this cynicism the hard way. Later, they will watch football marketing and have to remind themselves that a brand of beer will not automatically make you desirable to super models; the opposite is more often true. As they read their email, they will have to decide which of the 1000 Viagra offers they should respond to, if any. When they start getting credit offers, will they know that this is how people lose quality of life, not gain it?

Capitalism is not designed to encourage you to be an honest customer or vendor. If you can get away with underpaying and overcharging, why not? Why not abuse and cheat your employees if you can get away with it? Why not secretly dump untreated sewage into the ocean? Why not lie about the health benefits of your product? Why not skimp on quality control? Why not market items as "Fat-free" or "Organic" when you know full-well that your product does not truly belong in that category. Capitalism rewards the cheater; nice guys often finish last.

Conclusion

Capitalism is about money, not people. As a society, we require additional measures to temper the tendencies of Capitalism. Unfortunately, Capitalism is often more powerful than any system that would seek to lessen its impact. Capitalism is the source of money, and money is the source of power. Therefore, money talks. If a corporation wants to take the land you own, pay you less than you think it is worth, and demolish the house that your grandfather built with his bare hands, they will do so; they usually hold the power.

A corporation will be offered all kinds of incentives to move their plant to your town; you will not be offered any incentives, but you will get to pay more taxes to cover the corporate welfare. The airlines were faced with bankruptcy after September 11, 2001. I was laid off that October and also faced financial hardship. The airlines were given millions by the federal government; I received nothing.

I say that pure, unrestricted Capitalism is bad. Without the outside influence of philosophical ethics, religious principles, public outcry, media coverage, and government oversight, capitalism would abuse and destroy the people and ecology that support them. Corporations have many things in common with a parasite, and both will kill off their host if their activity is left unchecked.

So now, I can take of my Birkenstocks and tie-dye, cut my hair, and let go of the tree I have been hugging. I do believe what I wrote above, but I also believe that we have never seen an economic system that is better than Capitalism. Therefore, I will balance this post soon with an essay about the benefits of Capitalism. After that, I will provide a vision of a revised Capitalism, one that minimizes the negative impact while providing similar benefits.

Loyalty

I have often wondered about the concept of loyalty. As a Marine, we were taught to be supremely loyal (our motto Semper Fidelis is Latin for "always faithful"). We were also reminded of times when we would have to disobey orders, such as the soldiers in My Lai, Vietnam should have. I really had trouble with the concept of when to disobey and appear to be disloyal because war contains so many gray areas. Also, the consequences of disobedience are deadly. Perhaps that is the excuse of some of the Marines from 3/5 who followed their squad-leader in Haditha, Iraq that allegedly killed innocent civilians--they were torn between loyalty and morality.

Even today, there are times when I wonder if I should be more loyal to my customers or my corporation. Loyal to my boss or to my corporation? Loyal to myself or to my company? Loyal to my wife or my mother?

Mark's blog has produced a tangent that I would like to include here: a surface analysis of loyalty. I do not know that I can do more than graze the surface on a subject that can cut so deep and requires a broader experience than I possess. Even so, loyalty is a subject I must face often, as well as teach to my children and nephew. Therefore, I might as well get started now cleaving the fine points of loyalty. Perhaps I by analyzing it now I will have a better grasp of loyalty when I really need it.

Loyalty, it is argued by many, is a binary condition: either you are loyal or you are not. There isn't a gray area of loyalty according to conventional wisdom, and there isn't a reliable method of choosing when to be loyal, or not to be, that everyone would agree with. If I asked my father or barber, they would counsel me that I should be totally loyal to the institutions that I benefit from: my family, my company, my church, my nation, etc.

However, we have all seen what happens when we are blindly loyal: I think Nazi Germany is the most popular and best example of misplaced loyalty. Even in America, we cannot be expected to be loyal without negative consequences. My company has laid off loyal employees, families have been known to do horrible things when inheritance or scandal is on the line, our nation drafted boys for Vietnam even though they never intended to win the war (nor should we have been there in the first place), and churches...well, don't get me started on that. You know what loyal religious zealots can do, regardless of what name they give their deity.

Perhaps Shakespeare grasped the essence of the right kind of loyalty: "To thine own self be true." This is the kind of loyalty that I have clung to so far in my life, and I do not think it has proved to be a shallow, selfish loyalty that leads me to rationalizing unethical behavior and disloyalty. You may predict that a loyalty that is based on situational ethics is bound to be imperfect. I would argue that all loyalty is bound to be imperfect, but situational loyalty based on personal values that are aligned with societal mores is the most accurate loyalty we, as humans, can muster.

Benedict de Spinoza argued that the highest virtue of man was to know God; this knowledge would make us ethical. He argued that God is always ethical because that is His nature to be so: everything God does is right because He embodies what is right. According to this argument, the more we know God, the more we will desire virtue and our actions will begin to match God's ethics. The end result of knowing God is to imitate His nature. If everything God does is considered ethical, and if we know and imitate God then everything we do will be ethical too.

Spinoza goes on to argue that if we seek our own desires, we will conflict with the desires of other men seeking their desires. We will be hated and opposed in achieving our desires, which is obviously contrary to an ideal life. However, if we are all seeking God's desires, we can all be happy. We can help each other, receive help, and all end up equally receiving our share of the one desire.

I lean towards agnosticism, or at least Christian cynicism of some sort. Even so, I can follow Spinoza's logic most of the way. I believe that we can all agree as a society on some level of moral absolutes (against stealing, killing innocents, etc...) If we are examining our life and our society, as well as ourselves, we will know instinctively when loyalty is called for and when you should blow the whistle.

Also along Spinoza's reasoning, I think most of us are fairly honest and try to do the right thing for ourselves and our society. I have accidentally left my car unlocked with CD's and electronics visible and been glad to find them unmolested. If we are seeking to do what is right and in the best interests of ourselves, which includes doing what is best for the objects of our loyalty, then we will know where to cleave the limits of loyalty.

For instance, as a Marine I hope I would know at the necessary time that shooting unarmed civilians is actually disloyal to the Marine Corps. In the end, I should know that such an action is not only morally outrageous but it will damage the image of my beloved Corps and my nation, as well as my family and myself. Therefore, even though resisting the order to fire is disloyal to my squad leader and unit, it is an act of loyalty to all Slobodzians, all Marines, and all Americans.

We could even carry this further to say that shooting unarmed civilians is disloyal to the human race of which we are a member, and that disloyalty will have a direct, adverse effect on me (besides a blackened soul, I will enjoy less stability and more animosity. I may lose my life or a friend's life in revenge for the killing of an unarmed civilian). It would be better if our starting point was here at the highest level, but as humans we tend to be loyal to the lowest orders first.

I plan to talk more on my blog about how we are all symbiotic. At this point, I would like to define symbiotic as the state of interdependence; we all need each other; when we help each other we help ourselves; when we hurt someone else, we have hurt ourselves. The dictionary calls it symbiosis, but I am creating the word Symbioticism to define a philosophy I am developing.

For the subject of loyalty: if we understand Symbioticism, we realize that we act in our own interest when we help others. Therefore, if we make a decision with Symbioticism in mind, we will always be loyal to a higher order, even if we must be disloyal to a loyal order. Moreover, we know that if we choose a cowardly loyalty over known morality, then we have harmed ourselves as much as if we had polluted our own drinking water. The Germans should have known they were not better off by exterminating the Jews; they lost many of their best scientists, logisticians, and entreprenuers when they "cleansed the race".

I agree with Spinoza's reasoning: If I am a bad person, then I will make a bad decision when faced with a crisis of loyalty. If I am a good person, then by definition my actions are usually good; as much as is humanly possible. The result will be a right decision when faced with a crisis of loyalty: though I may choose to be disloyal to a certain organization or institution, I will have chosen rightly and it can be considered loyalty to a higher institution.

Now if we could all just agree on what is good and bad (what is quality?) in every situation.

Seneca on Happiness

I will continue my series on Politics and Capitalism as soon as I have the time to give it the appropriate treatment. In the meantime, I will share a few thoughts on another favorite quote.

My mind is wired for more--more of everything, more is better. However, two truths are there to bring me back to reality. One, I have more of everything than 80% of the planet. Two, my happiness has not increased relative to my possessions and achievement. For instance, I always wanted a house. I am lucky to own my house, but it does not always make me happy; especially when said house requires maintenance. I always wanted a degree; now that I have it, I am twice as busy but not any happier as a result.

What makes me happy? That is the most important question a person can ask. If something makes you happy and also hurts you or others, then you need to seek happiness elsewhere. Also, if the thing that makes you happy is the opposite of what your family/friends expect (you want to paint, they want you to study medicine) you have some tough confrontations to make.

Alternatively, if you do not know what really makes you happy, then how can you achieve happiness? I see people who shovel chocolate into their face and watch hours of TV seeking happiness when they would probably be much happier to take a walk in a garden and write their own songs. If you never discover that source of happiness unique to your genetic profile, you may waste an entire lifetime trying to find happiness in your parent's or spouse's path.

Thoreau went to Walden to see how much of life he could do without. He subtracted yeast from his bread and found that he was able to enjoy bread even more when he didn't suffer the hassles that yeast required. He threw out a paperweight that caused him to dust more often, even though it was probably a handy item in a house without A/C. Thoreau followed Seneca's advice and proved to me that the principle is sound.

Even so, I need a constant reminder. I should be overwhelmed with happiness; I would be if I compared my condition to that of an Iraqi farmer or Nigerian fisherman. No, I compare my condition to the neighbors, and I covet the wife and Porsche. I should know that a hot blonde and a cherry 911 Carerra will not make me any happier if they come with attitude and expenses. I should have Seneca's quote emblazoned on everything I own so that it is always in my mind:

To be happy, add not to your possessions but subtract from your desires.

-Seneca

Freedom and Political Systems

Freedom cannot be left unrestricted, and I have come to accept this based on ideas from Locke and Jefferson: That freedom for one can cause a lack of freedom (the state of injustice) for another. For example, if I steal your car, I have a new freedom from that car, but your freedom has been restricted by my actions, which is unjust. However, if I purchase your car from you without coercion or dishonesty on either part, we both enjoy the liberty that allowed the transaction.

Because human nature is inherently selfish, and because some people are truly evil, a political system is required to keep honest people honest and protect us from evil people. We need to restrict some of our own freedoms to protect our whole freedom from others. The trick is to balance protection and freedom within the political system.

Therefore, a political system that would make sense to me would allow as much freedom as possible, while protecting me in the event that another entity or individual tried to restrict my freedom. Democracy provides a means for me to influence the political system that oversees my society; democracy allows the people in a society to make decisions that restrict freedom and oppresses groups of people. Democracy has its pros and cons. Is there a system that provides as much freedom as democracy without as much injustice? My answer to that is, “Not yet.”

I do not think that a new political system is necessary to provide more freedom. The problems that exist in our democracy are not the cause of the system, they are caused by the people. Instead of changing the system, we need to change the people. It is possible that simply by changing a paradigm among the people in a system, they can make better use of that system.

It is possible that the most efficient and effective method to spread a paradigm is through the corporations who are causing so many problems today. That is where I think the value of freedom and the concepts of Corporate Social Responsibility meet. The latter can be used to increase the former.

Is Freedom a Good Thing?

Freedom makes people great. It increases their self-esteem, their quality of life, their education, their fulfillment, and their self-actualization. Increasing a person's freedom often provides an immediate positive influence on their life.

Sure, freedom is not always an immediate improvement. There have been times that providing freedom has increased a person's problems. Emancipating the slaves was not all wine and roses; many former slaves were not prepared for the responsibility of freedom. When children today are emancipated from their parents as they go away to college, this often creates more problems than they anticipated. We all saw how increased freedom was not exactly an immediate blessing in Iraq.

However, the problems were not caused by freedom itself. The problems were caused by the system that existed prior to freedom. A system of oppression followed by freedom leaves a chasm that cannot be quickly or easily filled. If you prepare a person for freedom, and gradually increase their freedom as their ability to handle decisions develops, you improve their life dramatically over time.

If a person or people is prepared for some level of freedom, then increasing their ability to think, learn, criticize, earn, own, travel, communicate, and create will always be an improvement over any life of restriction that can be forced upon a person. If the Taliban system of life is truly superior to any other, then it would be even more beneficial if it was practiced willingly rather than by threat of beatings and executions.

I do not propose that we inflict freedom on the planet against its will; the people of Saudi Arabia would be better off if their women were allowed equal rights; they will not realize these benefits if we try to force this freedom on them against their will. People need to have the freedom to decide not to enjoy their freedom. The U.S. achieved our level of freedom because we demanded it, we valued it, and we were willing to fight for it. The people of Vietnam did not value their own freedom in this way, which is why they are not free to this day despite the best efforts of the United States.

I argue that freedom is an ideal that everyone should seek. If it is implemented on a people who desire and value it, freedom is the one ideal that will be able to propel them to exceed their wildest dreams. No other ideal that I know of can have the empowering and enlightening effect that freedom can bring. Freedom is not a good thing, it is a great thing.

The Most Important Thing I Ever Learned

The most important thing that I have ever learned was the concept of freedom; this one discovery has shaped my intellectual life ever since. The American concept of political and economic freedom has been the central theme of my thoughts and actions; the issues and items that cause the greatest stress for me are the ones that limit freedom in any way, shape or form.

Issues regarding taxes which restrict my economic freedom are on my mind often, as are the other fees and expenses of life which limit how much power and pleasure I can purchase, the choices I can make, and the future freedom of choices that I and my children will face.

There have been several periods of my life where I experienced intense inner struggle though outwardly my life carried on as usual; that internal struggle revolved around freedom. I joined the Marine Corps partly because of a patriotic notion of protecting liberty. However, a Marine does not get to enjoy half of the freedoms that he or she protects, and that was a constant source of turmoil while I served. When my alcoholism took a turn for the worst, what motivated me to save myself was the promise of freedom in sobriety. That notion of freedom keeps me sober today. What has lead me to seek treatment for depression and ADD has been their effects on my freedom. The increased freedom of employment prospects caused me to persevere through ten years of college, despite many setbacks and struggles.

I discovered freedom in fifth grade. I also discovered the arch-nemesis of freedom: injustice. I think both discoveries were made on the same day. In fifth grade, I was in Mrs. Davis’ class at Woodland Elementary School in Grayslake, Illinois. The Bears would almost go undefeated that year, and would win the Superbowl. I remember Mrs Davis reading to us, but I am not sure what books she read. I remember we attempted to write out the number 1 google (a 1 followed by 100 zeroes). That is all I remember from 1985, except that one defining moment when my life paradigm was formed.

We studied U.S. history that year. In the previous years, we had heard of Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin, and the Declaration of Independence to some extent. We especially learned to love the freedom fighters George Washington and Abraham Lincoln because they earned us a day of freedom from school each year. Somehow, whether by design or by accident, all the fundamental political concepts of the American Revolution were put together in such a way that year that I understood it for the first time: Some people were free and some people were oppressed, but as an American I received the birthright of freedom.

Later, I discussed this concept with my mother; probably on the same day that it sunk in. This moment is burned into my memory; I can see the car we were riding in and the landscape going by. Until this conversation, my understanding was more of a Libertarian or Anarchist view of freedom; unrestricted freedom. My mom burst my bubble by explaining that not only was there limits to freedom in general but as an eleven year-old in her house, I enjoyed few freedoms. There was a promise that, “one day, when you’re an adult” I would taste the freedoms that America had to offer. Until then, I would suffer the despotic regime of Mr. and Mrs. Slobodzian.

The idea that there was the possibility of total freedom in theory, and somewhat unrestricted freedom to adults, but little or no freedom for fifth-graders introduced me to the concept of political injustice. I am sure that, like most kids, I learned to say, “It’s not fair!” at a young age; my four year-old says it daily, though I have no idea where he learned it. Even so, I didn’t really have a concept of true injustice, the type that affects groups of people. I knew when something unjustly affected me, but after this enlightening conversation with my mother I began to see that there was societal injustice, oppression that affected large or small groups of people.

Since then, I have analyzed systems and made decisions based on freedom. I have thought extensively about freedom and injustice, from many angles and in many applications. For the rest of my life, the cause of freedom for myself, for my children, for my sphere of influence, and for the world at large, will guide my thoughts and actions.

Some people shape their value system around a religion or a philosophy, some shape their value system on concepts of struggle or contest. My value system is based on freedom vs. injustice. If I have an ethical decision to make, I try to seek these two poles to help decide the issue: which decision grants freedom and which decision creates or sustains injustice.