In Germany, there are two types of companies: publicly traded and privately held.And knowing is half the battle.
The acronym 'GmbH', which is written after the name of the company, designates a company as private in Germany. The letters stand for Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung which, translated literally, means a 'company with limited liability'. GmbH companies are incorporated and, as such, are legal entities unto themselves. These companies must have a minimum of two partners and may be, but do not have to be, owned by a public company.
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
Term of the day: GmbH
I have seen companies like Bosch officially listed as "Robert Bosch, GmbH" and always wondered about the GmbH on the end. I have seen Inc, LLC, PC, B-Corp, etc and know what those mean but couldn't figure out what the GmbH could possibly mean. I just didn't care enough to look it up until today. And now you too can be a little bit smarter:
Monday, December 19, 2016
Uncertainty Avoidance
I
hate uncertainty. When I go to the store, I want to know what I am getting: I
have a list and a budget, and I already have an idea of what my trip will
cost. I don’t get into browsing much; if I don’t have a conception of what I
want or need, I just stay home or do something else. Spending hours walking
through stores makes me tired and grumpy. I do not go to the library until I
have looked up my items online, printed out the call numbers, check
availability, etc; I don’t browse much at the library, either.
I
have difficulty getting started on a writing assignment when I do not know
exactly how I will start, what points I will make, and how I will conclude. I
even have difficulty starting research if I do not already know where I want
the project to go point by point. I blame it all on being a “big picture”
guy.
However, it is when I veer off the planned route that I often find the best
stuff. When I am at the store to buy socks, I sometimes find a shirt that I
didn’t plan on buying, but it becomes a favorite item to wear. I may discover
a food item, tool, or device that I didn’t know existed and now cannot live
without. At the library, I have found some favorites just by looking at the
books on the shelf near my targeted title. Recently, I read The Confessions
of Max Tivoli because the spine grabbed my attention. It was a fantastic
read; one of the best novels I have read in a long time, and one I will
re-read in the future.
When I fail to conceive a project from start to finish but plunge in anyway, I
find some of my best sources and points. There are times when I start writing
and hit a dead end. Just as often, I find a new thread to follow, or I come up
with a whiz-bang conclusion. In fact, I think most of my best writing has been
spontaneous rather than methodically planned.
The threat of uncertainty has caused me to procrastinate, to let writing ideas
go, and to shy away from certain projects and opportunities. That is too bad
because most of the times that I was at the mercy of fate, I have been
pleasantly surprised at the very least.
As I was mulling this tendency of mine over, I realized that it has been
studied in cultures. Geert Hofstede is a well-respected researcher and author
in the field of Cultural Studies. He got his start by analyzing the employees
of IBM in over 70 countries and categorizing how their culture influenced
their values. He has since expanded the study, updated it, analyzed it,
exposed it to peer review, defended it from criticism, and updated it with
more recent and relevant data. It is a hefty topic, and I just want to touch
on a small piece of it here.
One value that Hofstede used to identify and categorize different cultures he
called Uncertainty Avoidance. A high score in this category identifies a
culture that tries to avoid uncertainty. On his website, Hofstede says:
“Uncertainty avoiding cultures try to
minimize the possibility of such situations by strict laws and rules, safety
and security measures, and on the philosophical and religious level by a
belief in absolute Truth; 'there can only be one Truth and we have it'.”
http://feweb.uvt.nl/center/hofstede/page3.htm
I
am sure that I have missed out on opportunities and gifts because I avoided
uncertainty. I am also sure that I could have accomplished more, and put more
quality into some projects, if uncertainty had not been an anchor for me. In
light of that, how many opportunities and gifts might some cultures have
missed out on by avoiding uncertainty?
Uncertainty Avoidance helps a culture avoid invasion, espionage, sabotage,
dangerous ideas that undermine the current system, etc. If the U.S. tended
more towards Uncertainty Avoidance, we could have prevented many of the
imported poison fiascos with Chinese toothpaste, dog food, and children’s
toys. We could have kept out the Arab Terrorists in both attacks on the World
Trade Center. We could have prevented the political damage done by communists
in the twentieth century.
However, Uncertainty Avoidance would have allowed Germany to benefit from
Einstein’s genius, rather than us. It would have prevented us from
incorporating many of the ideas, tastes, sounds, sights, and innovations that
make our lives great today. As a melting-pot nation of immigrants, we had no
choice but to embrace a level of uncertainty and hope for the best.
China avoids uncertainty; most Asian nations do. That has held China back from
innovation, economic development, beneficial immigration, and political
evolution. Deng Xiaoping had to drag the nation kicking and screaming to the
foothills of capitalism. Communism and Maoism were known quantities: they
could control the variables and expect certain returns. Capitalism meant that
the future economy was uncertain. Whether enough people would work the right
jobs at the right times in the right places was uncertain; it was uncertain if
“The Market” could be trusted to keep the ship upright and on course. Now they
have found that the uncertain conditions of the market has created an economy
that is like a Tsunami—it exceeds anyone’s predictions or expectations.
Even so, the Chinese economy and society still have many restrictions and
stoppers. If the currency of China (the Yuan) were a floating-rate, market
valued currency, it is expected that the value would rise to a realistic
value, making foreign products more affordable to Chinese consumers and
Chinese products more expensive for other nations to import. However, the
future is always uncertain. It is possible that a floating-rate Yuan still
beats the pants off the dollar and Euro. Moreover, a floating-rate Yuan may
bring in more investment, and increase the demand for Yuan in other countries
to the point that exceeds the current system of fixed-rates. A floating rate
currency does not require a nation to hold
$ 1,034,000,000,000 in
reserves to offset demand, which means China would have some spending to
do.
Currently, China retains an oppressive political system based on Communism. It
includes a lot of nepotism, corruption, and incompetence; there is precious
little accountability or creativeness. Just imagine what the nation of China
could accomplish if the people could freely choose honest, effective leaders,
analyze and criticize public policies, and demand changes when the need arose.
The uncertainty of democracy would, I think, be certain to make China the
unchallenged leader of the planet in every category.
The rankings below were listed in Hofstede’s book Cultures and
Organizations: Software of the Mind (London: McGraw-Hill U.K. Ltd., 1991,
p. 123 and 141) and reprinted International Management by Hodgett,
Luthans, and Doh (Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2006, p. 106-7). First, we have
cultures that, according to Hofstede, tend to avoid uncertainty more, ranked
approximately from greatest avoidance to less:
Greece, Portugal, Guatemala, Uruguay,
Belgium, Salvador, Japan, Peru, Costa Rica, Argentine, Spain, Korea, France,
Yugoslavia, Panama, Mexico, Turkey, Israel, Austria, Germany, Pakistan,
Taiwan, Chile, Brazil, Venezuela, Iran, Thailand, Equador, Arab Countries
(Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Kuwait, Iraq, Saudia Arabia, UAE.)
These nations tend to accept uncertainty rather than avoid it, listed
approximately from least avoidance to more:
Singapore, Jamaica, Hong Kong, Denmark,
Sweden, Malaysia, Great Britain, Ireland, India, Philippines, Indonesia, West
Africa (Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone), East Africa (Kenya, Ethiopia, Zambia),
Norway, Netherlands, Canada, USA, New Zealand, South Africa, Australia.
Hofstede did not include every nation in this study. He was originally limited
to nations with an IBM office, though he argued that his data was still
validated thoroughly, and it compared well to national samples. That explains
why the nation you were wondering about may not be listed above. However, I
think the main cultural clusters are represented.
I
reordered the nations who tend to avoid uncertainty according to a clustering
that made sense to me:
1.Celebrated
cultures that feel they must prevent being diluted or assimilated: Greece,
France, Austria, Germany, Belgium
2.Predominantly Catholic, most of South
America, mainly underachievers, all have been candidates for
socialism/communism, and supporters of mythology and mysticism (political,
cultural, and religious; i.e. Che Guevara and the Virgin Mary): Portugal,
Guatemala, Uruguay, Salvador, Peru, Costa Rica, Argentine, Spain, Panama,
Mexico, Chile, Brazil, Venezuela, Equador
3. Nations threatened or oppressed by
radical and violent Islam (including Islamic nations who are radical because
they feel threatened by the west):
Yugoslavia,
Turkey, Israel, Pakistan, Iran
4. Asian nations, accustomed to a long
history of invading and being invaded, each with a distinct culture that they
feel needs to be preserved and protected:
nTaiwan, Thailand, Japan,
Korea.
I
will consider this subject further but right now I am thinking this is a
problem worth addressing. I have no idea how we get a whole nation, let alone
a whole continent, to embrace uncertainty. It does appear to me, though, that
there would be many benefits to the global community of more cultures tended
to allow, even to embrace, uncertainty.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Word of the Day: Prolegomenon
Here's a word for you: prolegomenon. It is an introduction to a larger body of work. The best example is the essay you skip over at the beginning of classic works by some long-winded, self-important professor who wants to make the subject as dry and dull as possible. I found this word as the first heading in a technical white paper that was supposed to be about a cyber security tool. At the first blink, it appeared to be pretentious. But I was unfamiliar with the word and my first impression was replaced by curiosity and perhaps slight admiration.
Now that I've looked it up, I am torn. Is the author guilty of grandiloquence? Did his marketing team shrug, knowing his fondness for sesquipedalian loquaciousness and the rimbombante tantrums of a prima donna when his pretension is called out? Or should I feel grateful that he has expanded my vocabulary and added an intellectual flair to a writing style that discourages creativity?
Like most humans when faced with a person I do not immediately understand, I assumed he is like me and tried to determine his motives based on the contents of my own heart and conscience. This projection bias often gets us into trouble when the other person is not like you (probability=99.999%). However, lacking additional information about the author's personality and history, there's no harm in trying my shoes on him.
If I had been exposed to the word and then chosen to introduce my white paper with it, I would probably had done so as a smartass. Without malice, of course. It would have been my way of winking at you through the black-and-white text, hoping you didn't mistake me for a grandiloquent, pretentious twit. I would have hoped that 80% of the readers skipped that arcane word and dug into the meat of my paper, that 10% of the people would have looked up the unfamiliar word and found themselves edified, and the final 10% would be familiar with the word and assume (in error) that I am at least their intellectual equivalent.
Fortunately, I was exposed to the word through the aforementioned white paper. Now, I not only know what it means but I know one way to not use the word: in a white paper. I am sure there is a time and place for that word just as there is for everything else. But if you want to be read, you must consider your audience. For example, this blog is mostly read by spambots and Russians seeking to sell penile enlargements, if the unpublished comments are any guide. And technical white papers are read by young, overworked people who may only have a high school diploma and a certification or two.
The final result in my case was that I paused at the first word: Prolegomenon. That word distracted me, and I have since researched the word and written this blog post. I'm not sure if I can find the white paper again--I doubt I will find time to read it now. Other readers may have overlooked it or judged the paper as a waste of time based on the prominence of such a pretentious and abstruse word.
I'm glad that I learned a new word, and that I have this fresh reminder to seek to be intelligible more than intelligent. Unless you hold to the wisdom of Oscar Wilde who warned, "Nowadays to be intelligible is to be found out."
I leave you with a new favorite quote from an old favorite wordsmythe, William Shakespeare:
Now that I've looked it up, I am torn. Is the author guilty of grandiloquence? Did his marketing team shrug, knowing his fondness for sesquipedalian loquaciousness and the rimbombante tantrums of a prima donna when his pretension is called out? Or should I feel grateful that he has expanded my vocabulary and added an intellectual flair to a writing style that discourages creativity?
Like most humans when faced with a person I do not immediately understand, I assumed he is like me and tried to determine his motives based on the contents of my own heart and conscience. This projection bias often gets us into trouble when the other person is not like you (probability=99.999%). However, lacking additional information about the author's personality and history, there's no harm in trying my shoes on him.
If I had been exposed to the word and then chosen to introduce my white paper with it, I would probably had done so as a smartass. Without malice, of course. It would have been my way of winking at you through the black-and-white text, hoping you didn't mistake me for a grandiloquent, pretentious twit. I would have hoped that 80% of the readers skipped that arcane word and dug into the meat of my paper, that 10% of the people would have looked up the unfamiliar word and found themselves edified, and the final 10% would be familiar with the word and assume (in error) that I am at least their intellectual equivalent.
Fortunately, I was exposed to the word through the aforementioned white paper. Now, I not only know what it means but I know one way to not use the word: in a white paper. I am sure there is a time and place for that word just as there is for everything else. But if you want to be read, you must consider your audience. For example, this blog is mostly read by spambots and Russians seeking to sell penile enlargements, if the unpublished comments are any guide. And technical white papers are read by young, overworked people who may only have a high school diploma and a certification or two.
The final result in my case was that I paused at the first word: Prolegomenon. That word distracted me, and I have since researched the word and written this blog post. I'm not sure if I can find the white paper again--I doubt I will find time to read it now. Other readers may have overlooked it or judged the paper as a waste of time based on the prominence of such a pretentious and abstruse word.
I'm glad that I learned a new word, and that I have this fresh reminder to seek to be intelligible more than intelligent. Unless you hold to the wisdom of Oscar Wilde who warned, "Nowadays to be intelligible is to be found out."
I leave you with a new favorite quote from an old favorite wordsmythe, William Shakespeare:
He's winding up the watch of his wit; by and by it will strike. (Sebastian in The Tempest)
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Copyright Enforcement Gone Wild
Copyright enforcement has been big this week. First, an old case of file sharing had a jury decision this week. The US Appeals court in Minnesota reinstated a jury award of $220,000 against a casual home user of a file-sharing service that no longer exists. She didn't make any money off the service, and it was never proved that she was actually the one who downloaded the songs at her home. She was one of millions of users of the service, and most of us assumed at the time that if it was illegal, we would simply get shut off, not sued. I know a lot more people were guilty, and have not been summoned to court...yet.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/11/entertainment-us-copyright-thomasrasset-idUSBRE88A1CH20120911
Today we learn that a person who downloaded academic journals from a non-profit organization is guilty of nine felony charges. He used an open wifi connection at a state university to perform the downloads. And yet he is being charged by law enforcement as if he was a malicious, destructive hacker.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/aaron-swartz-felony/
Tim O'Reilly is a major publisher of technology ebooks who profits from copyrighted content. He came out earlier this year against several bills proposed in congress to take harsher measures against copyright violations, including shutting down entire websites for being suspected of hosting a link to copyright material. In toher words, if you searched Google and found a link to pirated material, the feds could have shut down the entire Google service(s). Or if my blog was suspected of plagiarizing, the entire blogspot community could have been shut down. Scary stuff, especially in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Tim O'reilly is thankful for pirates who share his material with markets who never would have heard of him. Those markets are now purchasing from O'Reilly. He prosecutes pirates when they are found, and O'Reilly's customers are his greatest source for reporting pirated material.
https://plus.google.com/+TimOReilly/posts/LZs8TekXK2T
Are we out of control with copyright enforcement, or is it about time we crack down on these menaces to society?
I admit it: I am guilty of pirating. When I was a kid, I recorded hours of tv shows and movies on VHS, and was an artist at producing mix tapes of songs recorded off the radio. And yet, a conservative estimate of how much money I have spent on legitimate tapes, CDs, DVDs, and Blue-Rays with the profits going to the rightful owners is about the same as the GDP of a third world country. I would record a song off the radio and like it so much that I wanted a clean copy of it, with liner notes and the rest of the songs on the album. There were movies I wanted, and didn't want to wait to record it or it wasn't playing so I purchased it. Today, I don't have the time to be a pirate so I pay for what I want. However, there are books I never would have read, songs I never would have heard, TV shows I would never have watched, if it wasn't freely available somewhere.
For example, Hulu is a great sources for movies and TV shows I never would have seen before, but the industry has yet to embrace the model. Moreover, it is a source for commercials I would have skipped if I was watching on TiVo or a cable/satellite DVR. Last night I watched a show called "Honey Boo Boo" that I never would have watched otherwise. I started by watching Saturday Night Live and they did a Honey Boo Boo sketch. I was tired and in the mood for silliness, so I searched for the show. It wasn't on Hulu, so I Googled it but my frame of mind could have been easily distracted, erasing Honey Boo Boo from my consciousness forever.
A distraction did not present itself, and I located Honey Boo Boo on TLC's website. They require me to download an app to my iPad. Normally I would have moved on to something else instead of hassling with a new app, but last night I decided there was nothing better to do. I downloaded the free app and within minutes I was watching Honey Boo Boo and laughing hysterically. With one caveat: I was required to watch a commercial about every 5 minutes, and it was the same commercial over and over again. Not even an entertaining commercial targeted at my demographic: this was a Dove body wash commercial targeted to soccer moms. But I know the commercial by heart, and it was worth the boredom to view Honey Boo Boo clips. So now I am talking to my sphere of influence about a TV show I would never have seen, and I am aware of Dove body wash. THAT is a market-based solution to the problem.
Let's say I was able to obtain Honey Boo Boo from a pirated source, commercial free. It would have taken a lot longer, and I may have exposed myself to malware or worse in the process. Then when I finally saw the show, I would have talked to my sphere of influence about it, and we all would be watching the next episode live, with commercials. I know I only have an MBA, but that still sounds like a win for Capitalism to me.
Monday, September 17, 2012
A Word and a Quote: Diapason; Anger
Diapason (Dyuh-PAY-zon) - noun
-A full, rich outpouring of sound.
I like this word. It is fun to say, and makes me think of the chills you would get in an old cathedral when the choir and accompaniment bring your favorite song home. There are some potential metaphors there that could transform an entire paragraph.
The original Latin/Greek means "through all the notes". Technically, the original meaning came from Pythagoras' work applied to music, and the "dia" comes from tuning Pythagorean intervals using an interval of 2:1 to get diapason, and then breaking it down from there to fifths, etc. So the diapason would be like hitting every string on a tuned guitar.
______________________________________________________
“Anger is like gasoline. If you spray it around and somebody lights a match, you've got an inferno. [But] if we can put our anger inside an engine, it can drive us forward.”
–Scilla Elworthy
This quote is great for me because I tend to react with anger first, and find myself frustrated more than the people around me (which tends to make me even more frustrated and angry.) My anger isn't very dangerous because I have it under control, but it is my natural state. I keep an eye on it because I know it could easily get out of control and then would be hard to reign in.
However, I also see controlled anger as beneficial. Emotional investment in a problem or idea tends to help us manufacture the energy, creativity, and endurance required to solve a problem or accomplish a great achievement. My frustration in the Marine Corps at obstacles or at periods of high stress could have turned into dejected surrender but instead I used it to push through and conquer the impossible. While working for my undergrad and my MBA, I was often driven by anger at leaders who I felt were ignorant and should be working for me. I knew I could never get to their level without solid credentials that begin with a degree.
My kids make me angry, and that is where the fine tuning is crucial. If I didn't feel the anger, then I may not care enough to keep coaching them on being better people. Of course, with kids almost any amount of anger expressed can be devastating. So I have to keep coaching them and never give up, but I can't relate to them in the same way that my drill instructors related to me. At least not yet... :)
There is a bumper sticker that says "If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention." It has been applied politically to both the left and right wings, as if their perspective should be obvious to everyone. This quote reminds me that they're both right, but add the caution that could prevent either side from diving off the deep end. Anger can empower us, and sometimes people choose not to be angry out of laziness or fear. Anger can get out of hand, cloud our judgement, and lead good people to make bad decisions.
You can layer your emotions and motivations by focusing more on some and less on others. Emotions like anger are hard to ignore and need to be factored in even if they seem undesirable, but you can limit their affect on your thinking and actions by focusing more on another emotion. For example, when my kids do something that they know is wrong, my immediate reaction is anger. But at all times, I feel love, pride, nostalgia, and other emotions. I let those positive actions be the filter and funnel that my anger has to pass through.
The end result is a spike in blood pressure, a stern look, a mental desire to impart a lesson, and carefully measured words that express disappointment, a clear expectation, and a loving reminder that I know they will one day may better decisions. I have good kids who commit very minor offenses (annoying the sibling, leaving messes, and playing games when they're supposed to be folding laundry) and voluntarily hug me when I least expect it, so it seems to be a system that works.
As we approach November 7th in a election year, I find politics to be on my mind continuously. But this year, I am more concerned with how to bring the two sides closer together rather than the validity of my own convictions. I think that what makes the Tea Party so nutty is the fact that they long ago let anger cloud their judgement, and that makes rational conversations difficult. However, their anger also inspired like-minded individuals and enables them to keep fighting for their convictions with vigor and tenacity. I think the only solution is to tap into the anger of the middle, but we need to find a stronger and more attractive emotion than anger which will sway the less nutty members of the right and will contain an engine within which to contain that anger and turn it into fuel (and keep it away from the steering wheel.) I know there are enough people who love this country and are angry at both the domestic and foreign extremists who threaten this country. If we can find that right mix of emotional appeal, it would allow me to use the diapason metaphor I am searching for in this sentence.
-A full, rich outpouring of sound.
I like this word. It is fun to say, and makes me think of the chills you would get in an old cathedral when the choir and accompaniment bring your favorite song home. There are some potential metaphors there that could transform an entire paragraph.
The original Latin/Greek means "through all the notes". Technically, the original meaning came from Pythagoras' work applied to music, and the "dia" comes from tuning Pythagorean intervals using an interval of 2:1 to get diapason, and then breaking it down from there to fifths, etc. So the diapason would be like hitting every string on a tuned guitar.
______________________________________________________
“Anger is like gasoline. If you spray it around and somebody lights a match, you've got an inferno. [But] if we can put our anger inside an engine, it can drive us forward.”
–Scilla Elworthy
This quote is great for me because I tend to react with anger first, and find myself frustrated more than the people around me (which tends to make me even more frustrated and angry.) My anger isn't very dangerous because I have it under control, but it is my natural state. I keep an eye on it because I know it could easily get out of control and then would be hard to reign in.
However, I also see controlled anger as beneficial. Emotional investment in a problem or idea tends to help us manufacture the energy, creativity, and endurance required to solve a problem or accomplish a great achievement. My frustration in the Marine Corps at obstacles or at periods of high stress could have turned into dejected surrender but instead I used it to push through and conquer the impossible. While working for my undergrad and my MBA, I was often driven by anger at leaders who I felt were ignorant and should be working for me. I knew I could never get to their level without solid credentials that begin with a degree.
My kids make me angry, and that is where the fine tuning is crucial. If I didn't feel the anger, then I may not care enough to keep coaching them on being better people. Of course, with kids almost any amount of anger expressed can be devastating. So I have to keep coaching them and never give up, but I can't relate to them in the same way that my drill instructors related to me. At least not yet... :)
There is a bumper sticker that says "If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention." It has been applied politically to both the left and right wings, as if their perspective should be obvious to everyone. This quote reminds me that they're both right, but add the caution that could prevent either side from diving off the deep end. Anger can empower us, and sometimes people choose not to be angry out of laziness or fear. Anger can get out of hand, cloud our judgement, and lead good people to make bad decisions.
You can layer your emotions and motivations by focusing more on some and less on others. Emotions like anger are hard to ignore and need to be factored in even if they seem undesirable, but you can limit their affect on your thinking and actions by focusing more on another emotion. For example, when my kids do something that they know is wrong, my immediate reaction is anger. But at all times, I feel love, pride, nostalgia, and other emotions. I let those positive actions be the filter and funnel that my anger has to pass through.
The end result is a spike in blood pressure, a stern look, a mental desire to impart a lesson, and carefully measured words that express disappointment, a clear expectation, and a loving reminder that I know they will one day may better decisions. I have good kids who commit very minor offenses (annoying the sibling, leaving messes, and playing games when they're supposed to be folding laundry) and voluntarily hug me when I least expect it, so it seems to be a system that works.
As we approach November 7th in a election year, I find politics to be on my mind continuously. But this year, I am more concerned with how to bring the two sides closer together rather than the validity of my own convictions. I think that what makes the Tea Party so nutty is the fact that they long ago let anger cloud their judgement, and that makes rational conversations difficult. However, their anger also inspired like-minded individuals and enables them to keep fighting for their convictions with vigor and tenacity. I think the only solution is to tap into the anger of the middle, but we need to find a stronger and more attractive emotion than anger which will sway the less nutty members of the right and will contain an engine within which to contain that anger and turn it into fuel (and keep it away from the steering wheel.) I know there are enough people who love this country and are angry at both the domestic and foreign extremists who threaten this country. If we can find that right mix of emotional appeal, it would allow me to use the diapason metaphor I am searching for in this sentence.
Monday, September 3, 2012
I am a registered Republican, but I can no longer explain why except that I do not have time to change my party affiliation with the county election commissioner. The registration has never been a help or hindrance, and I doubt that it is a blip in the data. But personally, it means something. The is strength and safety in numbers, and I want to support like-minded people to make this nation great.
There was a time just a few years ago when I taught my children that Democrats are bad people, and carried 10 Conservative talking points in my back pocket. Now I find myself on the fence but leaning a little to the left. In 2008, I had to explain that not all Democrats are bad, and that Republicans in 2008 are dishonest. Now, in 2012, I still am shocked at how dishonest my Republicans had become, and how they fight to seize the low ground every time.
During Clinton's administration, I was convinced that Democrats always claimed the low ground and Republicans possessed the intellectually-honest argument. As it turns out, Kenneth Starr's "independent" investigation was a distraction from the fact that Bill Clinton was reducing welfare roles, reducing regulations, reducing government, balancing the budget, and increasing good will among our allies.
I still own numerous well-worn books by Limbaugh, Coulter, and other Conservatives. I held several jobs where I could listen to talk-radio during the peak hours (Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc.) I received A's in history and political science for my Bachelor's and have completed my MBA, which should almost provide Conservative credentials by default.
I elected G.W. Bush because of his "compassionate Conservatism" which I interpreted to mean a balance between self-reliance and the fact that some people cannot sustain themselves no matter what. At the time, I welcomed a war in Iraq (and was still on reserve duty, so I was willing to go myself.) In 2004, I was a rabid Bush supporter and was willing to fist-fight you over my convictions.
By 2007, I had realized that the economy was tanking while Republicans tried to convince us that nothing was wrong. I realized that the national debt was trending ever upwards and that the war was being executed without a solid strategy while my civil rights were being eroded. I suddenly realized that the only thing that could be considered "Conservative" about the Bush administration was the protections of the wealthy, but that was coming at the expense of the middle class, which was very un-Goldwater.
I read both of Obama's books, as well as many other non-Conservative sources and realized I had missed out on a whole spider-web of intelligent discussion that is not as entertaining as Limbaugh and Coulter, but that is only because their aim is intellectual honesty rather than entertainment.
I find I still believe that people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and be allowed to fail--but that also applies to corporations as well. Republicans under Bush are quick to throw out cash to large businesses that struggle due to their own incompetence (airlines, auto manufacturers, AIG, etc...) but do not see the value in saving small businesses and middle class families from destruction. You don't need an MBA to see that small businesses and middle-class families are what supplies the growth in any bull market. If Republicans are willing to ignore that, and ignore that rising gas prices are going to affect the cost of goods across the economy which will threaten the solvency of families and small businesses, which will mean a lower consumer confidence index and a higher unemployment rate, which will feed a bear market or worse, which will lower big-ticket purchasing, which will lead to layoffs, which lowers consumer spending, which leads to layoffs, ... If you cannot see that, then you should not be in office. If you can see that and try to pretend like everything is okay, then I have to start considering conspiracy theories.
Why is it that McCain was always respected for being a moderate who reaches across the aisle, but as a presidential Candidate he sold himself as a staunch Conservative--but made the Republicans add Global Warming to their platform? I have read several of McCain's books and loved the man who wrote them. I would have voted for that guy, but instead we got this dishonest Manchurian candidate with an even scarier version chosen for VP. All I could do at that point was vote for Obama or move to Russia. The Republican party was unre ognizable to me.
And now in 2012 I continue to question the sanity of the GOP. Mitt Romney is another moderate--he was almost a Liberal Republican as Governor in the tradition of the Rockefellers. But with many viable Conservative candidates available, the Republicans choose Mitt. Actually, I'm okay with that and could probably vote for him if he was honest. But instead he is pandering to the Conservatives, and they are pretending that he is some kind of a second coming of Reagan (who was not very Conservative himself.)
Let's just be honest. If you follow the teachings of Jesus, whether you are a Mormon, a Baptist, a Catholic, or other, you have to admit that the teachings take a harsh stand against seeking wealth and in favor of giving to the poor and unfortunate. I have read the whole bible several times through and spent a lot of free time in the Gospels. I am confident that Jesus, given the choice between a Wall Street tycoon and a bunch of welfare recipients, would head straight to the ghetto to see how he could help them out. Sure, he would find a few who are overly lazy and would admonish them. But he would find the vast majority of them to be unnecessarily repressed do to lack of health insurance, lack of mental capacity, lack of opportunity, etc. He would have his hands full just curing simple ailments and feeding malnourished people. I am willing to bet he would point out that these cases do not require divine intervention but merely the slightest effort by a few tycoons--or the Government.
Let's be a little more honest: the more devoted an American is to their Evangelical/Protestant Christian beliefs, the more likely it is that they are rabidly opposed to Obama and outspoken in their support of Romney. How is this even possible? Romney believes that Jesus has already returned to Earth--right here in America. Romney believes that Mormons are the only ones going to heaven, and that his special Mormon underwear makes him a holier person. He believes in a religion that has been known for mass murder, polygamy, and many other sordid crimes in recent history. You have to go a few hundred years back for similar crimes of the Protestant church. Romney's religious beliefs are so far beyond those of mainstream Christians that they cannot worship together, and Christians label Mormon's as a cult. It is considered annoying if a Baptist leaves and goes to a Methodist church. But if a Baptist or Methodist were to leave for the Mormon church, it would be considered a major tragedy for that person--worthy of an intervention by family and church leaders. I have seen this with my own eyes, and it tore a good family apart. All of that is to say that if our relationship with Jesus as an Evangelical Christian has a strong influence on our political convictions, then why does it drive us to the cult-member rather than the Evangelical Christian.
Which leads me to the funniest/saddest part of the anti-Obama movement. And that's what they are: anti-Obama instead of pro-something better than Obama. They seem to hate Obama without any real reason and without a viable alternative. The funny/sad part is that there are still people who believe that Obama is a Muslim and a closet-terrorist. Even after four years of non-terrorist and non-Muslim activity from him. Even after he gives the order to kill bin Laden. Even after he has been photographed eating pork, and drinking beer with a Medal of Honor Marine-two things a Muslim would never do. We still have people forwarding photoshopped pictures and posting easily debunked lies about Obama being a devoted Muslim, about him holding his left hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance, about him filling his cabinet with criminals and communists, etc. The lack of critical thinking on the right is pushing me to the left more and more.
So I'm off the fence. Regardless of what my voter card says, I am not a Republican. But I hesitate to call myself a Democrat. I still have an ethical issue with Abortion. I still support the 2nd Amendment. I still think that Unions are not the best answer in a Capitalist society. I still believe that Welfare should be a last resort, and that military strength is good for our nation. But I also believe that a social safety net is good for the economy, and that alternative energy is better for our economy than oil, coal, and gas. I believe individuals should stand on their own whenever possible, and I believe the same is true of corporations.
I can't be the only one who sees the value in Obamacare and insists more people pay their fair share? I can't be the only one who sees that not everybody can start their own business because of their talents, and because the cost of entry is too great in most industries. I can't be the only one who sees that some single mothers could not have prevented their situation and that our society would be better served by subsidizing them rather than expecting them to leave their kids with a stranger and work three jobs just to make ends meet.
There was a time just a few years ago when I taught my children that Democrats are bad people, and carried 10 Conservative talking points in my back pocket. Now I find myself on the fence but leaning a little to the left. In 2008, I had to explain that not all Democrats are bad, and that Republicans in 2008 are dishonest. Now, in 2012, I still am shocked at how dishonest my Republicans had become, and how they fight to seize the low ground every time.
During Clinton's administration, I was convinced that Democrats always claimed the low ground and Republicans possessed the intellectually-honest argument. As it turns out, Kenneth Starr's "independent" investigation was a distraction from the fact that Bill Clinton was reducing welfare roles, reducing regulations, reducing government, balancing the budget, and increasing good will among our allies.
I still own numerous well-worn books by Limbaugh, Coulter, and other Conservatives. I held several jobs where I could listen to talk-radio during the peak hours (Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc.) I received A's in history and political science for my Bachelor's and have completed my MBA, which should almost provide Conservative credentials by default.
I elected G.W. Bush because of his "compassionate Conservatism" which I interpreted to mean a balance between self-reliance and the fact that some people cannot sustain themselves no matter what. At the time, I welcomed a war in Iraq (and was still on reserve duty, so I was willing to go myself.) In 2004, I was a rabid Bush supporter and was willing to fist-fight you over my convictions.
By 2007, I had realized that the economy was tanking while Republicans tried to convince us that nothing was wrong. I realized that the national debt was trending ever upwards and that the war was being executed without a solid strategy while my civil rights were being eroded. I suddenly realized that the only thing that could be considered "Conservative" about the Bush administration was the protections of the wealthy, but that was coming at the expense of the middle class, which was very un-Goldwater.
I read both of Obama's books, as well as many other non-Conservative sources and realized I had missed out on a whole spider-web of intelligent discussion that is not as entertaining as Limbaugh and Coulter, but that is only because their aim is intellectual honesty rather than entertainment.
I find I still believe that people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and be allowed to fail--but that also applies to corporations as well. Republicans under Bush are quick to throw out cash to large businesses that struggle due to their own incompetence (airlines, auto manufacturers, AIG, etc...) but do not see the value in saving small businesses and middle class families from destruction. You don't need an MBA to see that small businesses and middle-class families are what supplies the growth in any bull market. If Republicans are willing to ignore that, and ignore that rising gas prices are going to affect the cost of goods across the economy which will threaten the solvency of families and small businesses, which will mean a lower consumer confidence index and a higher unemployment rate, which will feed a bear market or worse, which will lower big-ticket purchasing, which will lead to layoffs, which lowers consumer spending, which leads to layoffs, ... If you cannot see that, then you should not be in office. If you can see that and try to pretend like everything is okay, then I have to start considering conspiracy theories.
Why is it that McCain was always respected for being a moderate who reaches across the aisle, but as a presidential Candidate he sold himself as a staunch Conservative--but made the Republicans add Global Warming to their platform? I have read several of McCain's books and loved the man who wrote them. I would have voted for that guy, but instead we got this dishonest Manchurian candidate with an even scarier version chosen for VP. All I could do at that point was vote for Obama or move to Russia. The Republican party was unre ognizable to me.
And now in 2012 I continue to question the sanity of the GOP. Mitt Romney is another moderate--he was almost a Liberal Republican as Governor in the tradition of the Rockefellers. But with many viable Conservative candidates available, the Republicans choose Mitt. Actually, I'm okay with that and could probably vote for him if he was honest. But instead he is pandering to the Conservatives, and they are pretending that he is some kind of a second coming of Reagan (who was not very Conservative himself.)
Let's just be honest. If you follow the teachings of Jesus, whether you are a Mormon, a Baptist, a Catholic, or other, you have to admit that the teachings take a harsh stand against seeking wealth and in favor of giving to the poor and unfortunate. I have read the whole bible several times through and spent a lot of free time in the Gospels. I am confident that Jesus, given the choice between a Wall Street tycoon and a bunch of welfare recipients, would head straight to the ghetto to see how he could help them out. Sure, he would find a few who are overly lazy and would admonish them. But he would find the vast majority of them to be unnecessarily repressed do to lack of health insurance, lack of mental capacity, lack of opportunity, etc. He would have his hands full just curing simple ailments and feeding malnourished people. I am willing to bet he would point out that these cases do not require divine intervention but merely the slightest effort by a few tycoons--or the Government.
Let's be a little more honest: the more devoted an American is to their Evangelical/Protestant Christian beliefs, the more likely it is that they are rabidly opposed to Obama and outspoken in their support of Romney. How is this even possible? Romney believes that Jesus has already returned to Earth--right here in America. Romney believes that Mormons are the only ones going to heaven, and that his special Mormon underwear makes him a holier person. He believes in a religion that has been known for mass murder, polygamy, and many other sordid crimes in recent history. You have to go a few hundred years back for similar crimes of the Protestant church. Romney's religious beliefs are so far beyond those of mainstream Christians that they cannot worship together, and Christians label Mormon's as a cult. It is considered annoying if a Baptist leaves and goes to a Methodist church. But if a Baptist or Methodist were to leave for the Mormon church, it would be considered a major tragedy for that person--worthy of an intervention by family and church leaders. I have seen this with my own eyes, and it tore a good family apart. All of that is to say that if our relationship with Jesus as an Evangelical Christian has a strong influence on our political convictions, then why does it drive us to the cult-member rather than the Evangelical Christian.
Which leads me to the funniest/saddest part of the anti-Obama movement. And that's what they are: anti-Obama instead of pro-something better than Obama. They seem to hate Obama without any real reason and without a viable alternative. The funny/sad part is that there are still people who believe that Obama is a Muslim and a closet-terrorist. Even after four years of non-terrorist and non-Muslim activity from him. Even after he gives the order to kill bin Laden. Even after he has been photographed eating pork, and drinking beer with a Medal of Honor Marine-two things a Muslim would never do. We still have people forwarding photoshopped pictures and posting easily debunked lies about Obama being a devoted Muslim, about him holding his left hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance, about him filling his cabinet with criminals and communists, etc. The lack of critical thinking on the right is pushing me to the left more and more.
So I'm off the fence. Regardless of what my voter card says, I am not a Republican. But I hesitate to call myself a Democrat. I still have an ethical issue with Abortion. I still support the 2nd Amendment. I still think that Unions are not the best answer in a Capitalist society. I still believe that Welfare should be a last resort, and that military strength is good for our nation. But I also believe that a social safety net is good for the economy, and that alternative energy is better for our economy than oil, coal, and gas. I believe individuals should stand on their own whenever possible, and I believe the same is true of corporations.
I can't be the only one who sees the value in Obamacare and insists more people pay their fair share? I can't be the only one who sees that not everybody can start their own business because of their talents, and because the cost of entry is too great in most industries. I can't be the only one who sees that some single mothers could not have prevented their situation and that our society would be better served by subsidizing them rather than expecting them to leave their kids with a stranger and work three jobs just to make ends meet.
Friday, August 17, 2012
Arm Yourself with Cyberweapons
Dan Geer is the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) for In-Q-Tel, the U.S. Intelligence Community's Venture Capitalist arm. In other words, he is in charge of cybersecurity for a company funded by agencies like the NSA who are tasked with securing the internet. He's also one of the smartest people on the cutting edge of information technology. In a paper for the IEEE, he makes the following statement:
"...—states
of every stripe and virtue are arming themselves
with cyberweaponry, ipso facto, you have
no choice but to do the same." -Dan Geer
What do you think? Should we have something like the Castle Doctrine to protect our online interests? In some states, you can use the Castle Doctrine to kill someone who is on your property threatening you. Of course, in the physical world, we have police working to prevent crime and arrest criminals. Therefore, we should not expect to need to shoot criminals very often. But our police are under-funded and under-trained to protect us in the virtual world. We have Federal military and intelligence agencies to protect us against foreign states, but their scope and power is limited by the Standing Rules of Engagement (SROE) and the Posse Comitatus Act.
The Second Amendment was written so that our citizens could protect themselves against their government and so that we could have a militia defend our nation at a moment's notice. Does the same principle apply in Cyberspace?
There is a popular quote attributed to Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto during World War II where we reportedly feared invading the U.S. mainland due to the possibility of a weapon behind every blade of grass. Yamamoto probably never said that, but it continues to live on because there is a truth behind it: an army invading the U.S. certainly would face a well-armed insurgency of ethical, patriotic Americans. That is not as true in most nations.
We have convincing evidence that China sponsors hacking against American target--and they have been wildly successful. Syrian dissidents have been target with malware which probably originated from state-sponsored sources. The extent of state-sponsored hacking is hard to determine with today's open-source intelligence, but it undeniably exists and will certainly grow. Hacking groups like Anonymous are a real and persistent threat to our companies as well to individual citizens.
Can we depend on our Government to protect our digital interests, our digital equity, and our identities that span the physical and digital realm? Should we depend on our Government for complete protection? Or should we arm ourselves with cyber-weaponry and attack cyber-targets which threaten us?
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Damn Good Joe
The world lost a damn good dog on Monday. I can't cry myself out. I have never lost anything that I loved so dearly. I guess I'm lucky that in almost 40 years, my biggest loss so far was a dog. I guess I should count myself lucky to spend 15 years with such a great animal. But the only things I feel right now are sadness and the temporary numbness that your body grants you right before it sends the pain signals again.
In 1998, I was finally on my own. The Marine Corps had forced me to live in tight quarters, never alone for a minute, for four years. But they didn't pay me enough to build up a savings account, so when I got out I lived with roommates and then with my parents. Finally, after 18 months of civilian life, I had saved up enough for an apartment. Within a month of moving in, I was ready for a dog.
The humane society had setup a puppy adoption on the sidewalk of a shopping plaza. I went down there just to look around, and I wanted to be picky about the dog I adopted. I was thinking of a boxer or a bull dog, and wanted to name it Chesty after a famous Marine General. I know: cheesy.
I can't tell you why I stopped stopped to look at Joey. I don't remember much of that afternoon. All I can say is it felt right. We made a connection, I paid the tab, and took him home.
Joey was enthusiastic and fearless. He sniffed my apartment down and pee'd on every tree in the yard. Twice. I was tired, so I called him into bed and we took an afternoon nap together. Then we went to my parents house to show him off, and he was instant friends with my parents dog (who I eulogized on this blog here.) It was the perfect first day.
A few weeks later I brought a girl home for our second date, and she instantly fell in love with Joey. And of course he fell in love with her. He never had an enemy, and really loved the ladies. I had my doubts, but he insisted I keep her around. Her name was Rachel.
I remember one day that Rachel wanted me to go to her family party where all her cousins and aunts/uncles/grandparents, etc would be gathered. I spent every second I could with Joey, so I took him along. The cousins were playing baseball and wanted me to play. My team was batting first, and soon I was up. I told Joey to sit-stay (he was usually obedient.) I got a hit and ran to first. When I ran, Joey ran. We were both safe at first. Next batter gets a hit, we both run to second. Rachel's family thought it was hilarious. We scored, and eventually played center field together. That was Joey in a nutshell: having fun and making friends.
Nobody could poop like Joe. He was infamous for quantity and quality. We would take him to a dog park or to my parents and bet on if he would poop 3 or 4 times in the space of a few hours. When my parents moved into a new house, he ran around the new huge basement and then laid a massive poop on a carpet scrap. He's lucky it was on the scrap and not on the newly installed carpet--or did he plan it that way?. After I married Rachel (Joey's idea) we bought a house. We brought him over to to check it out. He ran around the backyard for a while peeing on everything. Then he came into the house to sniff around...and to lay a massive poop in the center of the living room. Rachel swears she can still see the dent it left in the hardwood floor.
One day Rachel's sister ended up with an abandoned puppy that she couldn't keep. Rachel took one look at the puppy and insisted we take her in. I was skeptical, and let Joey decide. Joey let the little Cujo jump all over him, bite him, take his bone, and bark in his face. Then he licked her silly and gave me a nod. She stayed. I'm pretty sure Joey regretted that decision, but he would never admit it. Nina turned out to be crazy, selfish, messy, and loud. But she was his sister and he remained loyal to her. I have a picture of him licking and snuggling her moments before I took him to the vet, 14 years after adopting her. In his last few months, she was confined to a cage at night due to some accidents she was having, and I would find him in the morning in front of her cage, keeping her company.
Sometimes I am not as patient as I should be. Joey had his quirks that would really get me upset because no matter what how loud I yelled, he was still quirky. I'd feel guilty later and apologize to him, and he always forgave me. He was quick to forgive, but he didn't let his guard down. When he saw my temper rising, he avoided me. He trained me to use something other than anger when communicating with him. It took years, but I'm finally making progress. Sometimes Nina would cross a line trying to dominate him, or would try to take his food and he would bare teeth and back her off.
He put up with a lot of shit, but he wasn't a pushover. He drew his lines and stood his ground when it mattered to him. Joey was true to himself in a way that I may never emulate. And all the while, he was this humble, patient, generous dog who everybody loved. He always wanted to play, but he didn't push the issue when I was dog tired. He always wanted affection but if you told him to go lay down he would, and wait patiently for your love to come to him. He always wanted what you were eating, but he didn't beg. He would give you the saddest eyes you've ever seen, as if he had never eaten, but he wouldn't make a big thing of it or be disobedient.
Rachel and I had a child. Like the puppy, our first child wanted to climb on him and chew on him. He would just lay there and let her climb and drool. When she got bigger, she wanted to ride him. That wasn't going to happen, but he was gentle about it. He didn't run off or nip or buck. He simply laid down, let her bounce on his back till she got bored, and then gently disappeared. Nina was nowhere to be found during any of this. She learned to hide, slink away, and stay scarce.
Rachel and I had a second kid, and this one was all boy. He had a strong grip from the day he was born, and would pull tails and ears and fur. Still, Joey was a good big brother, always gentle and usually available for the abuse. Eventually, the boy grew up into a kid who understood how to play with a dog properly, and they were soon buddies.
On New Years Eve 2004, Nina got spooked by fireworks. She hopped the fence and ran off. We looked everywhere for her that night and couldn't find her. We kept looking for her day after day, without any sign from her. Joey obviously missed her, despite the fact that she took up space, attention, and food from him, and tormented him daily. We finally found her after two weeks, and when I brought her home there was a lot of excitement and tears. But no one was happier than Joey. He tried to lick all the fur off of her, and they fell asleep that night forehead-to-forehead. He could have been excited while she was gone because he had the house and the food and the attention all to himself, but instead he was happy to have his nasty sister back. That's Joey: All heart.
Joey had some nicknames. "Joe-dog". "Jose" (the Mexican in-laws came up with that.) "Jose-Martin" (I don't know how that came about.) "Butts-and-guts" (Joey filled out a little because he was half chow, and he was always hungry, so Rachel came up with that. There's even a song.) "Senor" (another mexican thing.) "Patches" because when he shed, his Chow undercoat would come out in clumps. Sometimes his sister was "Itchy" and he was "Scratchy", like the Simpsons cartoon. In the last two years of his life, he developed this panting habit that was loud and annoying. The vet said it was normal, but I would often ask him to stop. We joke that it sounded like a train, so when he started up his panting, I'd ask him to pull the train into the station. The panting earned him the name "Huff-and-Puff" (which sometimes turned into "Huffelpuff" after we read Harry Potter.) I think a nickname is evidence that you have personality, and it means people care about you. Obviously, Joey had a lot of personality and a lot to love.
Joey used to run with me. A few years ago, he started falling behind on runs. I was sad to lose a runnning partner, but he obviously had a lot of life left in him so I didn't think much of it. Last year, it got to the point that he couldn't walk for more than a few blocks. That's when I went into denial.
He started to have trouble standing up on the hardwood or tile floors, but that was where he preffered to lay. I bought him a top-of-the-line dog bed that he could easily get into and stand up in, but he preffered the cool, slippery floors. That, and his sister kept stealing his bed instead of using her own.
And then one Saturday morning, he couldn't get up. He kept trying, but his back legs just wouldn't push. So I helped him up and led him to the back door. He seemed okay, but when he had to step down to get outside, he stumbled like a drunk. He took two steps onto the deck and emptied his bladder. It was the most undignified thing I had ever seen, and I immediately snapped out of my denial: Joey was in bad shape. I carried him back into the house and tried to feed him, but he wasn't hungry. Joey not hungry? Oh shit.
I cried like a baby, right then and there. I couldn't hide it, and I couldn't speak clearly to explain to my wife what was wrong. All I could do was cry for Joey. I immediately made an appointment for the vet, but it took a while to compose myself enough to leave the house. My son went with me. The vet looked him over and diagnosed advanced arthritis. He said there wasn't much he could do, but would try an anti-inflammatory and a pain-killer. He also said that even with that, we probably only had a few more months. When he left the room, my son asked me what the vet meant, and I had to explain that Joey would soon be put to sleep, and how, and why. I explained that in the wild, his lack of mobility would have already killed him, but that we are able to prolong his life a little longer. But I also explained that for Joey's sake, we would have to end his suffering when there was nothing more we could do for him. All that time, I was crying.
The medicine helped a little. Joey moved around a little better. I followed up with the vet and asked if more medicine would help, but the vet sadly shook his head. I went online and tried to find anything that would give us some hope, but everything I read said that we were doing all we could do. Even surgery wouldn't help and would only cause more suffering for the animal.
And one of the articles made it clear: it is more for selfish reasons that we would delay euthanasia at this point. Once the animal has lost a significant quality of life, it isn't fair to them to keep them around. I thought I was delaying euthanasia because that was the right thing to do. But I came to realize that the Joey who was once so full of enthusiasm and affection was now a very inactive and sometimes irritable guy. He still ate his share and would let you cuddle him, but his heart wasn't in it. A couple of times recently I laid on the floor to cuddle him and he tolerated it for a while, then got up and went to be alone.
After a month, he went in for a followup and they noticed that the anti-inflammatory was doing damage to his stomach and kidneys. They took that away and left him on just the opiate. He started needing help to stand up several times a day. It was clear what needed to be done. I started researching euthanasia options. The research allowed me to delay the decision.
I finally made the decision, but couldn't make the appointment for several days. In the middle of the work day last week, I went down to my car and called the vet. We made the appointment, I hung up, and then I cried. That sucked. I went home and told the family. We all cried. That sucked. But then we all went to work on making Joey's last days as great as they could be. Everytime I walked past him, I said his name and gave him a pat. I brought home treats and let him eat whatever he wanted, though his appetite wasn't quite there. On Sunday, I threw a party for him. The kids made signs for him, and we had balloons, and he got his own hot dog.
That last night, we all cuddled around him. I was planning on taking him to the vet alone, but the whole family wanted to be there. It was a school day, but this was more important. A great dog was going to leave us. Their brother and best friend. They understood the whole thing and were ready for it, so I said they could be there.
That morning, I had to help him to his feet. I carried him outside to the grass, and let him enjoy his yard one last time. We sat around the living with him and I told the kids stories about a younger, faster Joey. The dog who kissed Rachel for the first time before I had a chance. The dog who tolerated a naughty puppy and two curious toddlers. A dog who plays baseball, and swims like a champ, and poops like no other dog. And then it was time to go.
I called him to the car. He took his time, and I let him. He sniffed, and he stalled because he never liked car rides. But I didn't force him. I let him come to the car on his own, and I lifted him in. In the parking lot at the vet, I set him down and let him take his time walking in. I hoped that it gave him some dignity to be able to walk at his own speed, on his own legs, into the vet.
The staff made sure that we understood everything. Then the vet explained that she would take him in the back, prep his leg and put in a catheter and then bring him back to us. She led him out, and we waited. After a few minutes, we heard huffing and puffing outside the door and knew it was our dog. Rachel joked that the train was pulling in. We chuckled a little, and encouraged him to come on in.
There was a blanket on the ground for him to lay on. The vet went to get the final injection while we spent a last few mintes with him. My son gave him a biscuit. we all pet him and told him the sweet nothings that came to mind. The vet came back in and asked if we were ready. We had been saying goodbye for days, so we couldn't be more ready to see him finally at peace.
It happened way faster than I expected. She slowly pushed the plunger and he suddenly relaxed like he was going to sleep. He let out a final sigh, she listened to his heart, and said, "He is in Heaven now." It looked like he was asleep. It was a dignified end to a life well-lived. We were then left alone with him.
We cried. Holy shit did we cry. My son, in mid cry, remarked that he had never seen me cry so hard. We didn't want to leave, but we new that eventually we had to. I don't know how long we stayed, or how we decided to leave. But eventually we left him there alone on that blanket in the examination room for the vet staff to deal with.
It was hard to drive home without crying, but someone had to be strong enough to get us safely home. Once in the house, I cried some more. And then I cried some more. My daughter was ready for school, but my son sat with me on the back porch and we cried together and talked about life, and death, and dogs, and medicine, and Joey. And I think we cried a little more. Then we cleaned our face, I took him to school, and I went to work.
I kept it together at work, and got through the rest of the day. Then I went home and cried a little. I went numb, watched TV, ate dinner, worked a little, and got into bed. And then I cried again.
That night, I had trouble sleeping because I wondered how they dealt with the body. We left around 10 am. Did they carry the body out while the waiting room was full of people? Did they gently lift him onto a cart? We paid extra to get his ashes back. How did his body get to the crematorium? Was it treated with dignity throughout the process? How would we know we actually got his ashes, and not just some random ashes?
This morning I woke up numb. I thought perhaps I was cried-out. But after everyone had left, as I was preparing to leave, I look at his food dish sitting there and I cried hard. I made gutteral noises I had never made before. Everytime I thought I was done, I started crying harder and couldn't stop. It was 20 minutes before I had enough composure to leave the house.
While driving home tonight, I cried a little. I talked to Joey, and told him how I planned to honor his memory. When I pulled into the driveway, I remembered how he would be at the fence to greet me on most spring days like this, with his curly tail wagging and his multi-colored toungue hanging out and a smile on his face. I cried again.
My son and I ran some errands, and played some tennis. And then I sat down to write this, and I have cried a hundred times while writing. I miss that dog so much. I know that I made the best decision for him, and that ending his pain was the best thing to do. I know we had a fantastic life together, and that he lived longer and with more vigor than most dogs. But I still can't get over the fact that I can never cuddle him. Never see that dog face looking up at me without any judgement or resentment. Never call his name and hear the click-clack of his nails on hardwood. Never hear his huff-and-puff to remind me to let him out or feed him. Never come home to find the one person who was always glad to see me and always had time for me--even if I didn't always make time for him.
Joey, you were the best dog that ever lived, and I didn't deserve you. But I am honored that I got to spend so many years with you. My days were brighter with you in them, and you trained me to be a better man. I will never forget you, and I will always strive to be more like you. Thank you, buddy, for being the best friend I could ever ask for. I love you.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
My Review of Roku 2 XS Streaming Player
Adds an enhanced remote for playing games, plus extra connectivity options.
Not worth it
By CCNA_USMC from Kansas City, MO on 9/18/2011
Pros: High quality picture, Built in Wi-Fi, Compact
Cons: Inconsistent performance, Difficult to set up, Want more video choices, Requires credit card
Best Uses: Secondary TV
Describe Yourself: Hulu plus user, Early adopter, Engineer, Netflix fan, Technophile
The unit occasionally locks up. Tech support was pretty good using chat. There are a lot of channels, but most of them offer subpar content. Great for Hulu and Netflix. Not useful for Youtube, Vevo, etc.
I think it is wrong to require a credit card just to start the Roku up, that should be optional. HUGE security risk for them to store my credit card info.
(legalese)
Friday, December 3, 2010
WikiLeaks and the Accused Leaker
Bradley Manning is the U.S. Army private who is accused of leaking information to the website Wikileaks. I have been sorting out my feelings on the Wikileaks controversy, torn between a desire for openness and freedom versus a desire for America's Government to be able to operate securely and effectively. I have quickly begun to lean in favor of prosecuting the guilty and shutting down Wikileaks. Considering the story of Bradley Manning led me in this direction.
First of all, I will concede that I do not know Manning and can not make any judgements about him. With that assumption, I can still justify an angry sense of ethical indignation against anyone who would take classified information and release it to total strangers. What he did was steal, and he stole something that belongs to every American, despite the fact that few of us can access it. Whomever revealed this information, they did so as a selfish act. They had no right to make that decision on their own, when so many other Americans were laboring tirelessly to secure that information and add value to it. This is a democracy where we make decisions through group consensus; the leaker of this information acted like a dictator when he made this decision without consulting a larger group of stakeholders.
Now what if Manning is guilty as charged? Assuming that most of what is written about him is true, Manning had a frustrating childhood, is socially awkward, and is gay. That leads me to believe that he is less a martyr for the cause, and more of an unstable personality using this opportunity to lash out at a world that never met his desires to belong and be accepted. If the stories of Manning's personal life are true, then I sympathize with him and wish that humans put a higher value on treating each other with mutual respect. However, that does not justify his actions anymore than it justified Jeffery Dahmer or Timothy McVeigh.
Leaking these videos and documents puts lives at risk, damages the reputation of a great nation, and diminishes or even nullifies the efforts of hundreds of dedicated professionals working for the causes of freedom and American interests. If he had a document that exposed a blatant act such as those that occurred at My Lai or Abu Graib, then this would be a very different conversation. In the case of Wikileaks, we just have a dump of data, the contents of which are unknown and the ramifications unconsidered. That is more than just unethical. That is treasonous.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
The Meaning of Wikileaks
Wikileaks does it again, publishing material that was meant to be classified and protected. People have called it treasonous and recommended legal action. Others have suggested a cloak-and-dagger approach to punish the guilty. President Obama has called for agencies to review their procedures for handling sensitive material. The general consensus among those in Government and among those private citizens who oppose the action of Wikileaks is that we must stop the leaks somehow.
My opinion is that we can try sticking our finger in the cracked dike, but that will not stop all the leaks. What we need to realize is that it is a new world; it is an open world. In a flash, from anywhere in the world, I can publish a paragragh or a terabyte and make it instantly visible to the rest of the connected world. Iran and China have tried to block the more offensive addresses on the internet, but willful people longing to be free will find a way around the barriers.
Federal agencies should secure their secrets and protect the people mentioned within the secrets. However, I think the larger lesson is that we can no longer sustain large, secretive agencies. Overtime, the large federal agency will become irrelevant. The nature of the internet is to collaborate with total abandon. The rules of a nation-state are simply a hindrance to what will inevitably dominate the earth. We do not want more trade barriers or more wars; we want to be free to collaborate and compete globally.
As Thomas Friedman pointed out, there was a time when global collaboration and competition was driven only by nations. Eventually, the vehicle for global collaboration and competition was driven by the multinational corporation. Once the internet approached ubiquity, we found ourselves able to compete and collaborate globally as individuals. Some guy in a jungle on a remote continent can affect the thinking of a whole group of American suburbanites with one tweet. A talented wicker-weaver in the middle of nowhere can setup a global storefront and become a multinational corporation all by herself with little expertise or effort.
Unfortunately for some people, this is actually just controlled chaos. You can't herd cats, and you can't keep secrets easily. Now that we are all individuals playing by our own rules, we are are going to reject the rules around of others. Governments have an important role to play here to make sure that the wild west is kept on a level playing field--in other words, to protect us from the most selfish and greedy violators.
I am not defending or supporting Wikileaks here. They don't appear to be considering the ethical impact of their disclosures. As an individual, I wouldn't want my secrets revealed to the world. For instance, my SSN is a powerful number that needs to remain secret. My medical history may appear benign to my doctor, but in the hands of some people it may be enough to keep me from the job I deserve--therefore we keep it secret. I certainly don't want anyone to know what my spouse and I argue about, nor do I want to hear about your arguments. Some secrets are important.
What I am supporting is the inevitable. We can't stop the world from becoming more open. We don't want to. With more people working on a problem, the solutions become more creative and more efficient. Diseases like cancer may not be cured without openness, for example. We just need to realize that it is a different planet in 2010 than it was just 20 years ago. In 1990, if I knew a major secret I would have to go through the bureaucracy of a major publisher and it would takes weeks to get revealed if it ever was. Now I can expose it globally, for free, from the comfort of anywhere on the planet, all by myself or in collaboration with any one of the millions of individuals who would like to help me.
The war in Iraq has demonstrated that the old way of fighting wars will no longer work. The enemy will dress like a civilian, live with civilians, and not be seen when he detonates the IED. If you are dressed like a Marine and driving down the same road you always do in an unarmored Humvee, you will not have the chance to defend yourself when you are attacked. Fireteam formations and raw aggression are useless against an insurgency. The military is adapting to the new rules. Now our diplomatic and intelligence agencies will have adjust to their new rules too. One of those rules will be: support individualism and reduce or eliminate inefficient bureaucracies.
Monday, November 15, 2010
A New Favorite Blog
I have a new favorite blog, thanks to the excesses of TSA. Johnny Edge's blog is a rambling list of Libertarian-leaning opinions focusing on the economic effects of idiocy. At least, that's my take on it. I never would have seen this blog if TSA hadn't demanded to touch Johnny's junk. I followed a link on twitter to his post, and have been fuming ever sense.
Here the gist of it: if TSA demands to touch your genitals and you refuse, then they can fine you $10,000 dollars and bring a civil suit against you. I am not a Constitutional scholar so excuse my ignorance, but doesn't that run against the idea of the Fourth Amendment? That is one step beyond illegal search and seizure, into the realm of tyranny.
Here's a funny TSA story: I was cleaning out my laptop bag and found a small bottle of alcohol-based (i.e. flammable) hand sanitizer. This is supposed to be taken out of your bag and put in the gray bucket, but I had it at the bottom of my laptop bag for two months now, and have flown almost every week during that time. San Francisco , Reagan International, Dulles, Midway, Tampa, and Kansas City airports all have failed to detect my concealed flammable item numerous times, and that's even with a few bag checks. I am sure you have heard similar stories of missed knives, liquids, and other crap.
This morning, as I boarded my flight in Kansas City I attempted to bring a scanner through. Right now, printer toner is being singled out because a terrorist allegedly tried to ship a bomb from Southwest Asia in a toner cartridge. That logically means that every American carrying a printer is part of the same profile (note: sarcasm). My scanner doesn't print, and there is no place to put a toner cartridge, but that didn't stop our crack TSA team from delibberating for several minutes over the offensive item.
Then the supervisor asks me what size toner cartridge is in this thing. I am an engineer and am certified to work on laser printers, but I confess I do not know my toner sizes. Unfortunately, they are not sold that way. I simply stated that it was a scanner, not a printer, and didn't have a toner cartridge. Here's where I get mad: They let me take the scanner at that point, never opening it to check for a toner cartridge and never using their fancy wipes on it. I hope no one tells the terrorists that TSA will just take your word for it when you say that it's not what they think it is.
National Opt-Out day is coming up on the heaviest travel day of the year. If just 10% of the travelers participate, I know for sure that there will be delays nationwide. I saw it with my own eyes just a few months ago. There is a group called Honor Flights that sends veterans on a trip to thank them for their service. A few months back, they booked a flight out of Kansas City heading to Washington DC, and were full of WWII and Korean War Vets. Whether they were wheelchair-bound due to combat or age, I don't know. What I do know is that they couldn't just roll through the metal detectors. Each one had to be hand-screened (groped and humiliated) before they could board their flight.
We're talking about 30 or 40 veterans, each one taking several minutes to fondle. The plane was delayed for an hour, and the next plane scheduled for that gate had to be diverted to another gate. The ramifications of one delayed flight can be pretty bad once it hits two or three other airports and is combined with weather and maintenance delays on other planes.
Besides that, if a man is willing to lay his life on the line for his country in combat, we can give him the benefit of the doubt and leave his junk un-fondled.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
The War After Armageddon; Plus a Word: Obstreperous
I just finished reading The War After Armageddon by Ralph Peters and have to recommend it. This is a book written by a retired Army officer who spent enough time researching the Marine Corps to make the language authentic. The title grabbed me first. Armageddon is supposed to be the last war ever, so I was instantly drawn to the question "What else is left to fight over after Armageddon?" I was in the mood for a fast, entertaining read and I usually do well with a war drama. This book fit the bill for me perfectly.
The author knew more than just military terminology and structures. It was apparent to me that he knew the secret languages of Army staff officers and Marine grunts. He understood the pride that motivates every Marine, the values that cause an NCO to maintain an inhuman discipline despite adversity.
Ralph Peters understands more than just how to talk like a professional soldier and Marine; he understands what motivates two sides of an extreme. While his book is a prophetic warning against religious extremism, Peters was able to authentically write the thoughts and speech of Fundamentalist Muslims and Christians. I don't know much about the Koran, but I know that he often made authentic references to scripture that even extreme Christians will appreciate.
This is a dystopian novel about a United States that has swung far to the Christian Right at war against an Islam united under one Caliph. In the same tradition of 1984, Farenheit 451 and Brave New World, Peters uses an unlikely scenario to demonstrate the dangers if we allowed certain ideas to grow out of control.
The book also demonstrates the very real threat of nuclear weapons held by people who are not deterred common rational ideas such as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Growing up in the 1980's, we lived under the constant threat of nuclear annihilation from the Soviet Union but were pretty sure that neither our own military nor the Soviet military would ever launch their weapons because neither side could truly win. My kids are growing up under different assumptions: that there aren't ICBM rockets being trained on American targets anymore. What we try not to think about is that if a religious fanatic is willing to strap TNT to themself and detonate it in a public place, why wouldn't they be willing to detonate a thermo-nuclear weapon if they are given the chance. While the Soviet Union refrained from attacking us because they did not want to live in a post-Nuclear world, it is not apparent to us that the terrorists who threaten the United States understand or even care about their future on this Earth. They are willing to die for their ideas and firmly believe that the afterlife will be far greater than this current life.
Ralph Peters has an impressive resume as a military analyst and strategist, who understands the systems and issues at play globally. That not only contributed to the authenticity and texture of the story, it added another important issue to be considered as part of the dystopian thesis: a dependence on electronic systems at the expense of fundamental military skills may expose our military in a future battle. The battlefield Peters describes is heavily dependent on electronic systems for communication and navigation, but the enemy has several weapons and techniques available that render a fully armed unit with a full compliment of physically-fit men unable to move forward, seek out, and destroy their enemy. Today, electronic systems prevent "friendly fire" incidents, deliver real-time pictures of the battlefield, and many other functions that were unimaginable just a few years ago. However, this is a fragile toolset that could be taken away by a capable enemy in the future. If we depend on GPS and never learn how to triangulate our position, determine an azimuth, and navigate over terrain using a map and compass, we may find ourselves completely lost and hopelessly defenceless in a war. The technologies exist, all we need is a determined enemy.
I learned a new word while reading The War After Armageddon: Obstreperous. It was used to describe an old man being detained in a crowd, but I couldn't tell from the context exactly what the word meant. According to dictionary.com it means either to be unruly and resisting restraint or to be boisterous and clamorous. That's a good word to stick in your back pocket and pull out to make a sentence more interesting later.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Patriot or Progressive?
Are you a Patriot or a Progressive? Can you be both?
All too often lately, I am seeing intellectual and political dissonance among my sphere of influence, but I seem to be the only one aware of it. I hear conservative friends complaining about welfare, people receiving money without being required to earn it and how it reduces competition while increasing reliance on Government. Uh-huh, the same people who gave us TARP, Airline bailouts, deregulation, subsidies, innumerable tax cuts and loopholes for corporations, etcetera.
I heard an Obama conspiracy-theorist rail on about ACORN and how it was a corrupt money machine. This was in defense of BP, whose Political Action Committee (PAC) is continuously fighting against the interest of Americans who enjoy tourist economies, clean and safe seafood, and beautiful shorelines.
My right-wing friends are consistently surprised that, as a veteran Marine I can be proud of my service and our history, but against the war in Iraq. Um, why would I support a war that is making my nation broke, making our former Vice-President and other war profiteers rich, killed thousands of Americans in unarmored vehicles, and has never found the smoking gun that we were assured was everywhere. (Well, the people closest to the situation including U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Scott Witter were 90-95% sure that WMDs were eliminated, but what would he know. He only spent 7 years working on the problem.)
Some people hear me talk about holding corporations responsible and punishing those which threaten the greater good, and they assume that I am a Socialist or worst. They hear me praise companies that make environmental and social goals as important as profits, and they assume that I am a Communist. In fact, I am neither. I am an MBA, with a hard-won degree from Baker University. I spent several years and over $20,000 studying business, profitability, and the fundamentals of Capitalism-in-action. I love making money, I own stock and real estate, and do not intend to hand my assets over to anybody without a fight.
As an MBA with extensive experience in Corporate America, I am here to tell you that Corporations do not exist to improve people's lives. They exist to make money for a non-human legal entity. The legal entity (the corporation) must prosper at all costs. If that means that rivers are polluted, people are laid off, entire towns are destroyed, and innocent people are stripped of their possessions, then so be it. You know all those movies where machines become intelligent enough to enslave their human creators? That is exactly where we are at with the corporation.
The only incentive for a corporation to act responsibly is to avoid Government fines and avoid bad publicity. Legally, the only real incentive to a corporation is when they are profitable. If they take an action that is responsible to a stakeholder but unprofitable, they can be sued by their shareholders for a breach of fiduciary duty. That needs to change, and B Corporations go a long way towards that end. What is really needed is constituent demand for a change in Capitalism: we need to demand responsible Capitalism where people receive the priority, the environment is cared for and protected in the interest of sustainability, employees partner with employers for mutual gain, and the world is left in better shape than it was found by each corporation, each person, each generation.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Word of the Day: Obbligatists
You know those boxes that appear on web pages during registration that ask you to type the work you see, and it is usually a non-sense word displayed with background noise and distorted letters? The one I filled out today asked me to type the word "obbligatists" which sounded like it might be a cool word to stick in my back pocket. Dictionary.com had never heard of it, and suggested "abblactate" instead, which means to wean. Not helpful.
A quick Google (the verb and the noun) helped me observe the word in context. Not as exciting or useful as I expected, obbligatists are apparently artists to play the oboe. If I ever find the oipportunioty to smoothly inject this word in conversation, it will probably be a depressing moment. Not that there is anything wrong with oboes or obbligatists, it just isn't a fit with my self-image. ;)
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Word and Quote of the Day: Palliate
Palliate means to excuse, alleviate, or otherwise diminish the severity of something. You may improve a person's life by palliating their suffering. On the other hand, if you palliate their shortcomings you may be enabling their poor behavior. I think Samuel Johnson's quote below is a great example:
“Friends are often chosen for similitude of manners, and therefore each palliate the other's failings because they are his own.” -Samuel Johnson (source: http://thinkexist.com/quotation/friends_are_often_chosen_for_similitude_of/149442.html)
Palliate comes from the latin word for cloak, which is pallium. This is interesting to me because it is a neuroanatomical term. In the brain, the pallium is the evolutionary precursor to the cerebrum. In all animals with a brain, the pallium clokes the brain and provides the superior, most complex functions. In humans, the pallium evolved in the cerebrum and provided us with a place for spatial memory, language, and other functions.
Check this out, a blog that uses cartoons to expand your vocabulary:
Monday, March 2, 2009
Guest Writing: 5 Productivity Tips
I was just published again at ChangeForge.com, writing about my 5 tips for boosting your productivity. Leave a comment on their blog with your favorite tip!
http://www.changeforge.com/2009/02/28/gitterdun/
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Why I Use Twitter
Twitter is the most important and popular trend on the internet right now. It is such a simple service that many people are skeptical of its usefulness. On the other hand, millions of people worldwide are finding new uses for Twitter everyday. I was once a skeptic, but I have found a use for twitter and would like to share it with you.
In a nutshell, Twitter is a service for broadcasting a message of 140 characters or less. This message can include text, emoticons, links, and Twitter commands. If you use Facebook or LinkedIn, then you have already been introduced to this concept. Twitter is similar to a status update on other social network websites. You can use Twitter as an alternative status update; I use an application that automatically transfers my Twitter status to my Facebook profile.
If you just yawned, give me a second. That is not the end of twitter, that is the beginning. The fact is, few people in the Twitter world care what your status is. What they want from you is useful information in 140 characters or less. Do you have something to say? Do you have an agenda? We want to hear it. We have chosen to follow you, now preach away.
What would you say? If you believe in a certain ideal or brand, you can send out brief messages about your cause. You can send out links to news and blog articles that you think should be read. You can send links to pictures that support your cause. This is your shot to write headlines, reach out, and be heard globally. Better yet, your message is broadcast in real-time at the speed of light. People will be reading your message as soon as you are done typing it.
Going Viral Have you heard the term "going viral" as it relates to the internet? Think of it this way: You have just discovered a fascinating piece of information that you know is of interest to many people. There are many ways to transmit this information, and Twitter may become the media of choice in the near future. All you have to do is capsulize your message in 140 characters and hit enter. Everyone following you will instantly receive the message. Some of them will like the message so much that they will "retweet" the message to their followers. Some of those followers will "retweet". The "Six Degrees of Separation" applies here: if the message is interesting, it will spread like wildfire.
Search My next post will drill deeper into how I use Twitter, but I want to mention here that Twitter is an important tool to add to your research toolbox. Searching Twitter will add an important new dimension to your research: The dimension of real-time. If you need timely information, I doubt you can beat Twitter for finding video, blogs, and news articles since they are sent out over Twitter immediately after they're posted. Additionally, the culture of Twitter ensures that you will find obscure and unique resources that a search in Lexis-Nexis or ABI Inform/Global would never turn up, and would be buried too deep in Google.
Look for my next post, where I explain exactly how I use Twitter.
I Found a Use for Twitter
Over the last year, I have been seeing references to something called "Twitter" in discussions related to technology, internet trends, and other "geek topics" which I follow. Suddenly, I started hearing Twitter dropped in non-geek conversations. Twitter began making its way into the news, and onto the Blackberries of some unlikely people. (Lance Armstrong, Barack Obama, George Stephanopolis, etc)
I kept my distance at first and only glanceowd at Twitter references occasionally. I just didn't see any use for Twitter in my life, and I thought it was a lame fad. I expected it to burn itself out quickly, and I could get back to FaceBook and LinkedIn.
I can now see that Twitter is not going to burn itself out; it is snowballing itself into a YouTube-like freight train. Some of the most popular and intelligent people are using Twitter regularly. Innovative developers are building new applications for Twitter everyday. A group of venture capitalists recently threw $35 million at Twitter, even though it still lacks a profitable business plan. Read that again: $35 million invested in a service that currently is unable to make money.
Several weeks ago, I finally dangled a toe in Twitter. It still seemed like a blackhole, but I kept at it. I was looking for the hook, and the hook found me: Twitter is what you make it. The service is so simple and easy that if you just look for a way to make it useful, you will create the usefulness.
A religious figure once said, "Knock and the door shall be opened, seek and ye shall find." If you play with Twitter long enough, you will create the door that you want to knock on. You will answer your own prayers. Twitter has so many potential applications that you are guaranteed to find a use for it.
In my next post, I will explain how I use it. For now, just realize that for whatever question you may ask, Twitter is the answer. Twitter will eventually be a network service that we take for granted like GoogleMaps or YouTube. It will not, however, go away for lack of usefulness.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
A Brave, New World
I just got an email from the President of the United States. The most powerful man on the planet sent me an email to announce a new initiative, broaden my understanding, and encourage my commitment. It's not the first time he has contacted me. We're connected on LinkedIn, he emailed me throughout the campaign, and continues to send occasional emails about what he is doing. His wife and his staff have sent a few emails too. He even sent me a text message to reveal his choice of running mate, prior to making a public announcement.
I try not to get a big head about it. I mean, I know I am not the only American who receives emails from the President, and we still have not met face-to-face. But he does solicit my feedback. I think he is truly interested in my opinion, approval, and support.
Yeah, Obama has no idea who I am, I know. In fact, it would make me nervous if he did know who I was. What I am excited about is the fact that the President of the United States has embraced social media. He has provided an avenue for dialogue that is unprecedented. Government will never be the same, and neither will the governed.
Love him or not, Obama is giving you access. You can still link to him on Facebook, MySpace, and LinkedIn. He still carries a Blackberry. Obama is leveraging the cutting edge of the internet, and finding new uses everyday.
Love him or hate him, you should pay attention to Obama's use of social media. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. What will be our reaction over time as Obama's administration finds new ways to communicate with us? This is even more important for the candidates in the future, for every office.
The president elected in 2012 may find that their real cost is in time spent online, rather than in dollars spent on TV and Radio commercials. In fact, the future candidates may need to demonstrate more savvy in social media than they do in fundraising. Campaign costs that cost less may dampen the voice of the interest groups who pay the most. A whole new paradigm of power may emerge.
The email I received today is for Recovery.gov which is a website dedicated to providing transparency and accountability with the money that congress approved for economic recovery. The intent is that any citizen may go to this website and be assured that our money is being invested in our future. Part of economic recovery is our own psychological perception. With Recovery.gov, we may have a quicker recovery due to the confidence of the American people.
Will this become the norm? Will we eventually take for granted having a government which communicates directly and immediately? Will we learn to demand the accountability and transparency that Recovery.gov is introducing? Will this change how our congress spends money?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)