The inherent conundrum of Operant Behavior

Missed it by that much

2010-02-05T14:38:00.000-08:00

Looks like I totally missed my 2009 two posts/year resolution.

But that was last year. And that is so, well, so last year.

This year is different. This year will bring promise, hope, and good times.
And apparently many clichés.

Being sucked down into the bowels of work, and well, trying to have a life, posting silly pointless messages has suffered a terrible loss.

And as an unforeseen consequence, I have all but lost the ability to write prose. What happened to being able to write 4 pages without even getting past the introduction? I think I left that ability when I grabbed my diploma and ran off the stage.

The time has come though that I need to hone the skill. The time of getting to the point is past. The time of boiling things down to the essentials is no more. It's now time to see if I can say something, anything and actually convey thoughts, and not just facts.

Ah, maybe later.

What do you know -- I do exist

2008-12-30T19:57:00.000-08:00

Once again I start with, 'It's been too long'.
Well, this time it's different. This time I'm actually going to be better about posting.
That's right -- I'm going to post completely useless information at a much more frequent rate. I'm aiming for twice next year!

Here's a glass of Dr. Pepper to toast the new year and success in having rantings that are amusing.

Luggage Observation

2007-09-17T10:53:00.000-07:00

I've been doing a bit of travel lately.
All those things you may have heard about planes being delayed and cancelled, people being really ticked off, and abounding problems, are all true. All of them. Yep. All.
But I'm not bitter. Yeah, I'm the one who isn't.

That's not what brought me out of my hiding though. Geez, I can't believe it's been so long since my last post. I was never consistent (and it's not about to happen now), but golly, over a year has gone by? It doesn't feel like it. And you'd think I'd be able to fabricate some elaborate reason as to why it's been so long, other than I've simply been too busy, but I can't. I've been busy.

So back on task. The proportion of kids (under 13) to adults is really low in the airports that I've been in. They apparantly just don't travel that much. But every last one that I've seen is holding, or usually pulling their luggage. And it's distinctive. From race cars to butterfly's, from penguins to bears, the shapes and designs reflect something personal about them. Something they can relate to at some stange level (even if it is the latest marketing blitz), something they can keep track of, something that at a glance they know is all theirs.

At what point does this stop being cute? Why shouldn't we all have personalized luggage? And I don't mean putting your initials on a black piece of luggage. Although in today's world, that would be quite a rebel.
I'd love to be in an airpot and see 'adult' sized luggage with fabric displaying all kinds of different prints. Business people with dinosaurs, dragons, flowers or pink pigs. What a different attitude we'd all have. I mean, who could be upset at a flight attendant who boards a plane with luggage that sports giant Dumbo ears?

Absolutely No Point

2006-03-24T10:35:00.001-08:00

Don't you miss that?

You know. Things that are pointless. But actually meant to be pointless.

Turn on the TV, and you will be lectured to. Really. Pick a program. Chances are good that the program you choose will have someone in your demographic either doing something bad, and getting chastised for doing it, or will be the person doing the chastising. If your demographic is the former, don't worry, next week it'll be the latter.
It doesn't matter; Drama's, action, 'reality' series, sitcom's, they are all the same. They all must try to drill some sort of message into you.
My guess is that it's easier to develop material if you've got some social issue to focus on, as opposed to actually being original.

Talk to someone around you. It won't be long until the advice flies. And if it doesn't, eyes will glaze over, and that familiar look will surface: "Why do I care? How does this contribute to my busy schedule? If I start walking toward the door will they follow me?"

Well, I for one miss the days when there was a certain luxury of wonder. A time when there was less planning and solving, and more questioning and inspiration.

So what's the point of this entry?
There is none. Absolutely no point.
Ahhh. That feels better.

Politics. Religion. Sex. Race.

2005-11-04T11:10:00.000-08:00

Ha!
Got your attention. Suddenly you're interested.
If if that didn't get your attention, you must be in denial.

Politics, religion, sex and race. All things you are never supposed to discuss with people you have only known a short while. But these are the only things that pique peoples' interest.

Oh sure, you can talk about that great fishing trip and the one that got away, or how nice the leaves look this time of year, but people just won't be interested. They may try to look interested, but will really be trying to get out the door.

Irony. Isn't it grand?

But that's just it. We are all so trained to 'make a nice first impression', that what we really make is no impression at all. In order to make an impression, you've got to talk about Politics, Religion, Race or Sex. You may offend someone, or be offended yourself, but at least the conversation will be interesting.

But alas, I struggle with talking about these things with strangers, and that whole first impression thing.
So one day, one day I'll break out of the chains.
That's right one of these days, I'm going to walk up to someone and declare,
"Hi, I'm a transgender, racially diverse lawyer looking for a new religion. I'm also running for public office... can I count on your vote?"

Blame the Analysts

2005-11-03T12:08:00.000-08:00

A lot of problems in the U.S. stem from a faceless horde of mystical people called "market analysts". And by that, I mean all those people who determine the price of stocks, bonds, funds, futures, etc.

It's a myth that the buyer and seller determine the price. It's really the market analyst. And to be fair, it is a natural progression. The number and complexities of the markets have grown so diverse that the buyer and seller wouldn't know where to start on setting a fair price. Enter the "Professional". The analyst is a specialist, doing all the number crunching, pouring over financial statements, setting benchmarks, and really knowing their segment of the market. They know it so well in fact, that they think they know what will happen to the market before it happens. For example, they expect X company to post 17-21% gains over last quarter. And sure enough, X company posts a 19% gain.

But there is an evil side to this set-up. The analysts have way too much power, and almost no accountability. And the most insidious thing about this is the tendency of "self-fulfilling prophecy".

What first brought my attention to this was the Enron fiasco. First, I'll concede that yes, the company may have been headed for seriously troubled waters, and yes, there were greedy people at the top (as well as through-out the company). But on the other side of the coin is a list far more impressive: The talent at that company was astounding. Not only were they some of the brightest, most innovative people on the planet, they believed in the company as well. Forget hindsight. If you are a smart person, surrounded by smart people doing smart things, inside a company with stellar performance, you too would believe there was very good future ahead.

But the company never had a chance. While most companies that are headed for a fall have time to clean house, start new initiatives, and generally weather the storms, Enron didn't.

Why? The analysts killed the company.

At the first sign of trouble, the CEO didn't find a scape-goat, didn't immediately blame him for all ills, and above all, didn't demand his resignation. After all, at this point, the first signs of controversy were just beginning to surface. But the analysts have the knee-jerk reaction of lowering what the stock is worth. The market reacts like a bungee cord and drives down the stock even further. The stock analysts see the trend of the stock plummeting, don't see a manufactured scape-goat and perpetuate the cycle.

Now the Bond analysts jump in with their wisdom. The stock is no longer worth what is was, so naturally the company isn't worth what it was, so they decide to downgrade the credit standing. The stock analysts see this as a bad omen, and further devalue the stock. This vicious cycle continues until the company's credit gets so low that it triggers loans to be immediately due. Well once the loans are called by the bank, and naturally the company doesn't have the cash on hand, the downward spiral of bond and stock prices picks up tremendous speed, until bankruptcy is the natural conclusion.

And that is self-fulfilling prophecy.

Fast forward to today. A year ago, gas prices were hovering around $1.50/gallon. In the last few months, they have gone well over the $3.00 mark, and are now hovering in the $2.50 range. So who is to blame for the outlandish prices? If you listen to the media and 90% of the public, it's the hurricane's, emerging markets, but mostly, the gas companies. And yes, all those are factors, but equally at fault, if not more so, are all those analysts setting the prices.

By nature, all markets are considered to be futures markets. You buy a stock thinking it will be worth more tomorrow than it is today. So really, for you to purchase a stock, the price must be undervalued. Everyone else has the same attitude, they just may not agree with you on the price of that stock. So since everyone else has the same attitude, the stock market reflects not today's conditions, but tomorrow's predicted conditions. An example of this is the stock price going up, prior to a company that expected to report earning increases. By the time the company actually releases the information, it is already reflected in the price of the stock.

The oil market is no different. Every year, there are hurricane's in the gulf. The price/barrel reflects that well in advance of the season. Converting from gasoline to heating oil takes time, and money, and this too is built into the price/barrel long before the first cold snap hits the north east. Likewise, emerging markets are just that: emerging. This isn't a secret, and isn't something that suddenly catches everyone off guard over a period of a couple of months. Age and capacity of refineries as well as current and future government regulations are all known and built into the price/barrel.

The other thing that no one, including the media, talks about are the contracts that are currently in place. Most companies negotiate with their suppliers, and it is no different for those who supply the gas. Isn't it baffling to think that there has been limited inflation despite the sharp increase in the price of gas at the pumps? The media and politicians love to bring this up. However, it's one indication that the long term contracts companies have with the gas companies haven't yet expired. The longer the higher gas prices persist, the greater number of contracts will need to be re-negotiated at substantially higher prices. And that is when inflation will start to show.

So back to the analysts. They are the experts. They know what will happen before it happens.
So why the wild swings in price/barrel? If the price reflects what will happen tomorrow, and the analysts are indeed knowlegable, then price should follow a curve, not jagged mountains. Jagged Mountains implies the analysts are blithering idiots.

I really don't know why the analysts are pushing the prices up. So far, I haven't heard an explanation that wasn't known a year ago. My suspicion is that the analysts are smart. And as with all things in the market, it has to do with money. Whether personally or professionally, the oil/gas analysts are profiting from either the price or volume of gas being sold.

Yup, blame the analysts. Too much power; not enough accountability.

Conservative: Lack of intelligence?

2005-09-16T10:23:00.000-07:00

I wonder if anyone has graphed the correlation of a government's conservative level to its people's intelligence level.

It just seems like the more a country is conservative, the less that the people are educated. For instance, countries like Denmark, Canada and Sweden have quite a few people that are well educated. And these are rather liberal countries.
On the other hand, very conservative countries like Niger, Yemen, and Haiti have relatively fewer numbers of educated people.

Of course I'm basing this on the assumption that the more 'school' you attend, the more 'educated' you become. The fallacy of that assumption is grounds for a much longer, later entry. So for now, I'll just go with the premise that 'educated' means book smart, not street or farm smart.

The U.S. by international standards is fairly liberal. So it follows naturally that we are some of the most educated. Early in our history, we were smart enough to get rid of the totalitarian government that sent or drove the founders here. Today, we provide that service to less educated countries (like Iraq) that can't seem to do it for themselves.

Closer to home, on an individual level, it seems like the more intelligent a person becomes, the more liberal they get. In fact, the very fundamentals that America was founded upon are quite liberal. Things like people are entitled to their opinion, and can speak their mind whether they are right or wrong, are to this day, down right radical. Oh sure, we all believe in the concept, but in practice, we have a hard time with it.

For instance, it isn't all that unusual for a person to say something, only to be dismissed by someone who is conservative, on the grounds that what was said is simply 'liberal rantings'. Conversely, the person who is more liberal may also believe that it is 'liberal rantings', but that there are underlying truths that should be addressed.

The more liberal a person becomes, the more knowledgeable they become, the more accepting they become, and definitely the more sympathetic they become. The irony is that 'accepting' and 'sympathetic' tend to be viewed by the conservative as traits of the unintelligent.

Priorities

2005-09-14T10:22:00.000-07:00

Hurricane Katrina really was disastrous for quite a number of people. The effects are more numerous and wide spread than anyone could have possibly imagined. For instance, I work at a place that is very close to the Astrodome. Among many, many other concerns, parking immediately became an issue. Previously, I never would have thought that a hurricane passing through New Orleans would lead me to having difficulty in parking at work for months.

The aid bandwagon is tremendous. Funds, concerts, and political pleas are now everywhere. The people that have been displaced have been called by many desperate things including evacuees and refugees. It is difficult to miss the daily, constant reminders that these people have 'lost everything'.

Yesterday, I went to the nearest grocery store to the Dome. Residents from 'Reliant City' were everywhere, easily identified by the plastic wrist band that each wore. Snaking all the way out of the store was a line which lead into the store and right to a dispensing machine.

Curious, I looked closer at what all those people were waiting for. In very colorful letters, the machine proudly declared: Lottery tickets.

America Needs to Laugh

2005-09-09T12:22:00.000-07:00

Yup, I've finally identified the trend. The U.S. is too serious.
Really. In the future, this will be known as the 'Age of the Brood'.

When was the last time you had a good hearty laugh? Bet it's been awhile.

As a country, starting with the Twin Towers falling, the country has largely been obsessed with Terrorism, War, Tsunami's, Human suffrage, and the latest has been Hurricane Katrina.

The country has been too sullen, too long. Take a look at the Entertainment Industry. Reality shows are about the hottest commodity out there. Sure, the claim could be made that they showcase the triumph of the human spirit. But really, people tune in each week to see who is able to cajole, convince, sweet-talk, cheat, steal, and lie the best.

How about Movies? There is definitely a shortage of Comedies. Oh sure, there's lots of slap stick, screwball comedies featuring crude "bathroom humor" floating around, but where are the comedies that aren't insulting? I mean, where are the "Ghostbusters"? The "Beverly Hills Cop"? The "Bringing Up Baby"? The "Tremors"?

"Tremors" actually brings up a good point. The comedies have been replaced by Horror movies. Horror movies are everywhere, and it seems like all of the popular actors/actresses are joining in the melee.
Tremors" was one of those transition movies that were not quite "Horror", and not quite "Comedy". Unfortunately, that transition has led to such movies as "Scream".

Even the satires have jumped into the Horror venue. Instead of "Hot Shots", taking its place is "Scary Movie".

Back to T.V., the horror scene is now happy to be in prime time, including weekly episodes. "Kingdom Hospital" is just one example.

On the silver screen, everything has to be darker, more dramatic, more tragic than those before it. I mean really, was there actually a need to produce a Batman that was darker than Tim Burton's?

Here's a couple of careers that really show the pattern:
Tom Hanks: "Bosom Buddies", An awesome show, and Tom Hanks was the Cut up of Cut ups. ; Then on to films like "Bachelor Party", a veritable classic; Followed later by "Big", which inspired many look-a-likes. But later, more recently, he has gotten stoic, tragic. As "Forrest Gump", and more recently in "The Terminal", his characters are largely objects of pity. Especially with Forrest, Tom Hanks has accomplished the art of the "Brood".

Keanu Reeves: "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure", another classic, this is one of those typecasting movies that actors hate. He was so good in the role that he will never be able to shed the association. Fast forward to more recent works, The Matrix Trilogy, and Constantine, all of which he is The One. Talk about dark and brooding.

Yup, America is due for a good riotous laughter.

Full belly aching hilarity.

On torture and Guantanamo

2005-06-17T06:19:00.000-07:00

So there's a bunch of torture talk in reference to Guantanamo these days.
Sorry, another depressing topic.

But while it isn't the most pleasant thing to think about, it did happen. Actually, it does happen. And not to whine about whether it was technically torture, of if there were sufficient instances, I'll set a benchmark. If it happened to you, then you'd be saying it was torture. And once is too many times.

So it happened. It was bad. It shouldn't have been done. Those who participated and those who knew about it should undertake some sort of corrective action. Assuming that this will occur (and has occurred), these episodes are not what people should be concerned about.

Why did it happen?

There was a study done several years ago (And if you're really interested, let me know and I'll try to dig up the source.) that took a random group of people. Randomly split them into 2 sections, half were 'guards', and half were 'prisoners'. The study was to last for 7 days but had to be halted early (I think at 4 days) because the guards were starting to abuse the prisoners. When questioned later, they actually believed that they were superior to the prisoners, and that the prisoners deserved the mistreatment. The researches found that the "prisoners" also had similar feelings. Apparently, it doesn't take long to dehumanize someone.

So that probably contributed. Something else that probably contributed is that the people committing the acts were rather young and consequently didn't have much experience being guards. After all, a considerable amount of their training revolved around how to kill people.

But then there is the rest of us. And as a society, we all contributed. The destruction of the World Trade Center was such a shock, so heinous, so unthinkable, that it altered the American society's frame of mind. The unthinkable becomes a reality. The greater the shock, the greater the knee-jerk reaction. Americans don't roll over, they react. And the bigger the shock, the bigger the reaction. The torture is still part of that reaction.

But Americans also don't hold grudges for very long. Without more reinforcing shocks, the mind set of the country starts to settle down. But while the grudge may not be so prevalent, the memory is still there, so since there is a new mindset, a new set of unthinkables are now thinkable. Five years ago very few people in this country would have condoned the acts at Guantanamo. Today, it isn't unpopular for people to express in frustration that this may be the only way to stop another attack.

So this torture business is a brand new area for Americans. And one thing that can easily be said for the Americans is that we are a quick study. What happened at Guantanamo was crude at best, and this country has a history of going from crawling to flying.

The thing that should really be worrying people is what kind of torture will be occurring in 5 years?
If what transpired is barely crawling, then flying is unthinkable. But then again, crawling was unthinkable 5 years ago.

115

2005-06-15T10:11:00.000-07:00

I'll admit that I'm not very good at reading beyond the headlines where suicide bombers are concerned. To read the story behind the headline is providing some legitimacy to the suicide bomber. The most popular belief is that the suicide bomber is after publicity. And there is only publicity if people pay attention. By clicking on a link to the story, I contribute by one, to that publicity. Beside that, I just don't want to spend my time reading about people dying.

But every once in a while, I'll read the story, as I did today. And I'll admit also that the story astounded me. Written by a reporter in Baghdad, New York, and Kirkuk, it was maybe half a (8 1/2 x 11) page long. While the headline specifically addressed the most recent suicide bombing, the article mostly talked about where, when and who died over the last 2 months.

115.

The whole reason I clicked on the link was to find out why these suicide bombings occurred. I keep hearing about them, but I don't hear why. Very brief images are shown, or stock photos are displayed, but very little is actually mentioned pertaining to what would motivate people to blow themselves up, and take others with them. And I thought the New York Times might address this issue.

115.

And to the authors credit, they devoted about three sentences explaining why 115 people perished. Apparently, the Sunnis don't like the Shiites having the majority voice.

Those attacks, and many that followed, were seen as a direct challenge to the new Shiite-dominated government.

And 9 paragraphs later:

Kirkuk, which sits atop some of Iraq's richest oil fields, is coveted by the country's major ethnic and sectarian groups, and for that reason is considered the most politically precarious city in Iraq.
The question of who will administer the city is expected to be one of the most contentious issues during the writing of the permanent constitution, and analysts say the city could descend into large-scale civil strife if political solutions are not carefully laid out.

The rest of the article dealt mostly with throwing out numbers of people that died, with very little, if any details.

115.

So what amazed me was that the 23 people that were murdered got very little attention, even in an article that by the headline, was the main focus. Apparently, not even the media is willing to give the suicide bombings much attention.

What astounded me was the sheer callousness of dolling out the numbers of people that had lost their lives. But again, to their credit, the authors did put in a couple of quotes: Enough of the killings!, and God needs to help the Iraqi people.

It is surprising to me because usually an article describes many different interviews. How people felt, what lead to the event, and the general climate are usually written even for something as mundane as the mental health of a subset of the population of a major city.

But apparently listing that 92 other people died is simply filler for the 23 that perished.

115.

PsychoBusiness

2005-04-12T06:29:00.000-07:00

So I had a tiny epiphany today. It was about the dichotomy of the business world. Today was a mandatory meeting for all supervisors and managers across the entire organization. While there are useful bits of information such as the current financials, the bulk of the 3 hour meeting was centered around conflict resolution. You know, all that warm, fuzzy psychobabble that most people agree with, but in practice completely ignore.

Growing up, I always seemed to have these great ideas about business, and was then completely mystified when someone else came up with the same idea and it was touted as "cutting edge". For instance, it just made sense to me that two companies would want to save advertising dollars by combining their product with another companies product in the same ad. It is a win-win, cross merchandising plan. Both companies get their product seen, and reinforced by another product, all for half the cost. The commercial that later aired (about 4-5 years later), combined an airline and hotel chain. See? It just makes sense.

So when I was deciding on a career path while in High School, I thought, "what better way to succeed in business than to pursue psychology?" After all, it really boils down to the understanding and manipulation of people. In my mind, it has always made perfectly logical sense that in many ways, the business world was practical psychology.

But what I was not aware of at the time was that psychology is rarely taken seriously. After all, it is still considered a "Liberal Art", despite nearly every psychology text book opening with the phrase, "Psychology is a science. No really, it is."
Fine, call me manipulated, but Psychology really is a science. But only about 10% of it is. There are hypotheses, theories, and laws. There are experiments that consistenly result in the same outcome. When Pavlov rang that bell, those dogs salivated. Stimulus-Response; Science.
What gets the press however, is the other 90%, "Tell me about your mother" Freudian psycobabble fuzziness. But even in this 90%, I do believe that you can filter out quite a bit of science. It is just really hard. At the root of the problem is the control of the variables. The human organism, in its natural environment simply has too many variables, to clearly identify that consistent causal relationship.

But in this capacity, psychology is also doomed to failure. The closer a researcher gets to being able to predict human nature, then the more capable that researcher is of directly manipulating that behavior. In order to be effective, the manipulation must be done without the subjects knowledge. And that is unethical.

Unethical in the lab. Not business.

Enter the pop-psychologist. These are the used car salesmen of the field, perpetuating the misconceptions that psychology is little more than fuzzy psychobabble. And in quarterly 2 hour sessions you too can learn how to effectively manipulate all those around you to your benefit.

And therein lies my tiny epiphany: In general, businesses tend to reject the notion that psychology is a valuable degree (in relation to business). Instead, corporations choose to spend millions of dollars trying to train their employees through counseling, exercises, retreats and a vast assortment of other en vogue programs, all centering around how to talk and listen to each other.

And that is something that not only makes absolutely no sense to me, it makes no business sense to me either.

Done

2004-12-23T08:43:00.000-08:00

So this big 'ol project that I've been working on since April which affects about 90% of the company, and involved among many other things, several thousand pages of documentation, has now been implemented.

A single noisemaker unfurls and a subtle 'tweet' fades off into the distance......

Audience participation

2004-11-26T11:37:00.000-08:00

A kind of Blog Chain letter...

This was taken from Mike at Rhetoric and Rhythm :

(A) First, recommend to me:
1. a movie
2. a book
3. a musical artist, song, or album

(B) I want everyone who reads this to ask me three questions, no more, no less. Ask me anything you want.

(C) Then I want you to go to your blog/journal, copy and paste this allowing your friends to ask you anything & say that you stole it from me.

2004-11-04T12:56:00.000-08:00

The previous post (below) is a question that has stayed with me ever since I attempted to read 'The Idiot' by Fyodor Dostoyevsky.

In the book, the main character asks that question. I say attempted to read it, because I never was able to finish the book. So I don't know if the question was ever really answered.

When I started the book, I was in my late teens and it was a particularly difficult read for me. I only picked up the book because I had thoroughly enjoyed 'Crime and Punishment'.
The fact that I gave up reading the book is particularly disconcerting for me because I have only had two experiences where I tried to read something (prose) that was beyond me. 'The Idiot' was one, while the other was 'Worlds In Collision', by Immanuel Velikovsky which I tried to read before I made it to those teen years.

I've still got both books though with bookmarks still in them. Just waiting for me to continue where I left off. So maybe one day I'll pass them on to someone else.

A simple question?

2004-07-13T10:26:00.000-07:00

So if you think you're an idiot, are you really an idiot?

A simple quote

2004-06-21T05:34:00.000-07:00

I used to really like quotes, and knew quite a few. Over the years however I've tended to be a bit distracted and not really paid much attention. But the other day I heard one that I thought was really amusing:

"Announcing your intentions is a good way to get God to laugh".

Now even the schizophrenic are trendy

2004-06-18T12:23:00.000-07:00

I find it extremely amusing that the affluent part of society have finally caught up with the trend launched by those who wander aimlessly around the street asking passersby for change. After all, I'd wager it hasn't been that long since you did a double-take where you noticed someone was having a conversation, but no one else was near them. The only discernable difference between that person and the homeless one, is that the former just happened to have a wire dangling from their ear.

Driving while talking on a cell phone

2004-06-17T10:44:00.000-07:00

First off, I'll freely confess right off the bat: I've done it. And no, I didn't pull over to the side of the road. Just the other day in fact while I was talking on my phone and driving in traffic, I cut another person off.

I think that cell phones are just another scapegoat in a long line of scapegoats. Growing up, it was all these foreign cars that were smaller than the American tanks, and were able to zip around traffic. Then it evolved into 'women drivers'. Later it was something else, etc. etc., until we come to today and the hot topic is the phone.

Most people drive pretty much the same whether they are by themselves, have passengers, or a phone attached to their ear. Really, go ahead and every time someone does something idiotic, look to see if they are using a cell phone. There will be some, but it probably won't be as many as you think. Now count your self, because while you were paying attention to everyone else, you probably did something to make someone else mad.

It's just easier to blame a person's sex, race, nationality or an inanimate object, than to deal with the real issue -- People's driving skills are abysmal.
So all this controversy, blame and legislation just isn't going to make it any safer to get out there on the road. There are just too many other distractions.. For example, assuming you weren't on a cell phone this morning on the way to work, can you remember your entire drive in? Most likely not. Sure, there will be parts that you can easily recall, like that time the blue SUV suddenly stopped for no apparent reason. But think about the drive where nothing happened. Were you thinking about work, home, kids, etc. during this time? Most people, especially on routine things like driving to and from work, are on auto-pilot. So putting a phone in their hands is simply a substitute for some other distraction.

And as for me cutting off someone, the phone had nothing to do with it. The other person going 40 in the left lane of a freeway had a lot to do with it though.

But hey, I'm still going to avoid that woman driving a small car, while applying make-up and talking on the cell phone as the 'baby-on-board' hang tag sways in the back window. You've got to draw the line somewhere after all.

Miscommunications

2004-06-16T10:02:00.000-07:00

Whenever you see a list of problems in the workplace or home, lack of communication is always right near the top. There are volumes of books written on the subject, various speakers tour on it, and there are numerous workshops available. All this just to get us to express what we really mean.

And people still don't get the message.

I walk constantly past double doors that have a sign on each proclaiming 'Keep Out' on the fist line, followed by 'Authorized Personnel Only'. So that when you read it as it's written -- Keep out authorized personnel only -- it makes no sense. I always have a tendency to walk in so that someone can tell me that I'm not authorized, and I can reply "I know, that's how I got in". Now that would be a good example of misplaced misundersandings.

There are signs just like that all over the place. Simply placing 'Keep Out' on a door is straight up confusing to me. First off, it's a door. If it's not to be used, then how about just locking it? And does that person who slapped the sign on the door really think that it will deter people from entering? If that really did work, then I'd get one for my front door.
But really, if you wanted to convey an accurate sentiment, how hard would it be to simply put up a sign that read: 'Entry for Authorized Personnel only'?

Then there is another door which I frequently use that to the right states: 'No entry', and to the left has an electronic badge reader and a plaque above it that says 'Authorized personnel only'. Talk about mixed signals.

But this problem is pervasive all around us. I just know I will be heading off to jail one day when the officer pulls me over then asks, "Have you been drinking" and I say 'yes'. Of course my bail is going to increase when the judge asks me if I've taken any drugs and I say 'yes'.
Never mind all that I may have had was water and an aspirin.

Clinton should have stepped down.

2004-05-11T10:28:00.000-07:00

That's right - Clinton, the guy who was impeached, should have resigned his presidency. So why didn't he? I think about 90% of it was pride. After all, it took Nixon nearly 30 years before he started to become at least moderately credible.

And here's why -- The country was on the verge of being obsessed. When the lead story on all news reports starts with the status of Clinton's latest soap opera episode, well, that's bad. It's bad for the country. And when so much money, time and other resources are being spent on something that is relatively insignificant in the grander context of an entire country; And if all that wasted energy is a direct result of one man, then that man should be a bigger man, and step aside for the betterment of the country.

I am not a big fan of reality TV. In fact, I really don't like it. With that said, I tend to be a sucker for Fear Factor, and I have begrudgingly seen a few episodes of The Amazing Race due in large part to a good friend.
However, it is very hard to escape all of the sordid reality shows on TV, and I happened to catch bits of the last episode of 'Your Fired'. Apparently, one of the contestants was in charge of organizing a major function, and in the course of doing this, one of his people lied to him twice, and did a few other things (wrong) as well. His handling of the situation is largely attributed to him not winning, and was chastised at length over it. At one point, Trump commented that if any of his employees was caught in a lie, then they would be fired on the spot. It's simply business. If you damage the company, you're out. Period.

The Republican's are always taking the heat for supposedly treating the country like a business. So what's the tie in to all of this? No, I'm not insinuating that Bush should step down. However, I do believe that Rumsfeld should be removed from office. Voluntarily is of course preferable, but it needs to be done. Just like Clinton hurt the country, Rumsfeld is becoming the obsession, and it sure isn't helping Bush with the general populace. The Republican's are missing the 'treat the country like a business' boat on this one. Rumsfeld has been targeted as who is ultimately responsible. Whether it is accurate or not, him holding that office is having the same effect that Clinton had, and he should be out. Period.

And yet another test. Looks like I'll never quite get past that Beta stage.

2004-05-06T13:59:00.000-07:00

Yes. I have returned. Not with a whimper mind you, but with a sigh. A sigh of 'why does all this html have to be difficult?"

2004-02-04T11:15:00.000-08:00

And thus I succumb to the Blog.

Perhaps I'll return someday with something more to post.

Perhaps one day you will too.

What are the odds?