Looking Forward to Another Fearful Decade

So here we are, witnessing the last few dessicated days of this decade drop one-by-one like leaves swirling into the storm drain of history.

One cannot help but compare our current media-stoked fears of melting ice caps and rising sea levels to the sense of trepidation (and in some cases - panic) that characterized the waning moments of the last decade.

Y2K
If you were working in IT and you were working for a company that had been around for more than five years, you were in some way involved with the desperate race to convert your legacy COBOL based Mainframe scatter-base business systems to the infinitely more complicated world of Client-Server, enterprise-wide, shared database environments. Nearly everyone was convinced that because some computer programs carried only the last two digits of the year, this would cause the entire infrastructure to a halt. Planes would fall out of the sky, elevators would get stuck between floors, automobiles wouldn't start.

It seems kind of silly now; nothing bad happened when the century did finally roll. Yet the fear that was generated by gurus and pundits caused businesses to spend trillions of dollars changing their perfectly adequate systems. Do you think the lack of reported disasters was the justification for all the remedial activity? Was there a monetary incentive for software companies and consultants to promote the fear of doing nothing?

Deja Vu?
One cannot help but see a similarity in the current Global Warming controversy. I say controversy because not everyone agrees that humans are substantially affecting climate change. Heck legitimate scientists even disagree on whether the temps are warming or cooling. But, which ever side you are on, you cannot help noticing that the dire warnings echo the fearmongering of the Y2K crisis. Most of us non-scientists find it easier to go with the consensus opinion. But we should remember that historically, consensus in scientific thought has generally been proven incorrect by the accumulation of more information. The data upon which the current global warming fears are based cannot be verified. Not very scientific, if you ask me. Again, we can see a monetary gain for industries that will benefit from selling green stuff. I am not suggesting that our energy policy is for sale. That would be cynical.

Y2K was not the only impending disaster of the millennium. Ten years ago, we were worried that the cloning of a sheep named Dolly would lead to Frankenstinian experiments and armies of warrior human clones, body part farming and a global market in spare body parts. No one wanted to eat genetically engineered corn, nor even steaks from cows that had been fed such scary food. Remember the Mad Cow disease panic? It ruined the US beef export market for years.

In 1999 we were worried about the war in Kosovo, we worried about the flare-up between nuclear powers India vs Pakistan. We worried that the Columbine massacre would spark more copycat mass shooters among Gen-Y malcontents. We were worried about WMD's in Saddam Hussein's arsenal. Most of these fears fizzled early in the new decade.

What Really Happened.
Who among us anticipated the debacle of the 2000 presidential election? The world watched while we learned about hanging chads in a ballot count dispute that raised the spectre of third-world style election fraud in Florida and other states. And, we were shocked and awed by the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington DC. This was followed by paralyzing terror in the form of Anthrax in the mail, and sniper attacks in DC/Virginia area. The war on terror drew into a long and costly occupation which has yet to end. Images of Katrina victims stranded on roofs in New Orleans compete with pictures of hundreds of homes destroyed by fires in LA. Oh, I almost forgot the near total collapse of the economy that virtually wiped-out half of our retirement nesteggs, sent millions of Americans to the unemployment line and worst of all - destroyed our faith in the integrity of the fat cats and politicians who run and oversee the system.

The summary point here: just about everything we were worried about in 1999 turned out OK and the real disasters were unforseen. Let us assume that the next decade will bring more surprises - that is indeed scary.

Have a predictable New Year!

Christmas 2009

No pony again this year.

Tis the Season.... to be Famous

In today's Globe, columnist Ellen Goodman writes an op-ed piece entitled "Whatever Happened to Shame?" which echoed my own musings in yesterday's blog. Goodman writes that anthropologists say that "shame comes from a violation of cultural norms". She goes on to cite several cases to demonstrate that the cultural norms seem to be shifting towards acceptance of the antics of the rich, famous and wannabees. Examples include the mistress (and rat) of Gov Spitzer has just landed a job as an advice columnist at The NY Post.
"Now they have hired the hooker to be an advice columnist. This is like hiring Bernie Madoff as a personal finance columnist." She also cites the cynical attitude of fat cat bankers who seem to have no sense of embarrassment when details of their greed are reported.

There was a story last week about Bernie Madoff in "prison" (his door is not even locked) where he is regarded by other felons as the "Godfather". Tiger Woods alleged girlfriends are showing up in droves, each eager for her 15 minutes of attention. Pols caught on camera taking bribes get re-elected. They justify their behavior declaring that everyone does it. Fame trumps shame. It's just part of the evolution (or is it devolution?) of cultural norms.

Collectively, we have accepted the premise that famous people can get away with stuff that would have embarrassed most of us, if our mothers had found out.

Heck, Nowadays, Mom proudly shows her tattoos for anyone at the mall to ogle while she is loudly talking on her cell phone ignoring her bratty kids who will, undoubtedly, grow-up to be shameless bratty adults.

'Tis the Season to be Greedy

Fa-la-la-la-lah La-la-la-lah.


I'm getting worried. Shame, the traditional weapon against corruption and abuse has been rendered ineffective - or so it seems to this wizened observer of the American scene.

While most of us are still tightening the old fiscal belt, bank executives, Wall Street fat cats, college presidents and politicians are unabashedly gorging themselves in a feast of excess.

In the news yesterday, the costs of congressional travel to conference in Scotland.  Our elected reps and spouses spent 5 days at a "conference", and spent taxpayer money like water from a firehose. 

Banks, Wall Street, GM are paying back billions in TARP money so they can continue to pay exorbitant bonuses to themeselves and cronies. They say the top execs are irreplacable but anyone who has worked in a successful company knows this is not true. No one is indespensible. And most of the important work is not done in Mahogany Row.   Besides that, most of the guys looking for bonuses were calling the shots when the economy tanked.  Aren't bonuses supposed to be a reward for success?

In his 2002 book Throwing the Elephant Stanley Bing presents a zen approach to managing the boss (the elephant). This observation (p172) is dead-on:

"Unlike you, the great elephants do not concern themselves with personal feelings because they have taught themselves to view the vast range of human interactions as 'just business', nothing more, and this distance gives them incalculable power."

So there you have it. The main reason execs have the perks is because they are a) smart and most importantly b) are not burdened by conscience.    Relieved of a sense of shame for their actions, there is no reason not to continue to claw and grab any money on the table because everyone else is doing it too.  Tough darts for the vast unwashed.  It's just business saith the Godfather, nothing personal. 

The problem is, we  (who still feel shame even when we undertip a waitress because of  lousy service)  are becoming personally revolted by these excesses - especially when it is on our backs.   

The great philosopher Tom Leher  nailed it in his Christmas Carol: 
"On Christmas day you can't get sore
Your fellow man you must adore
There's time to rob him all the more
the other three hundred and sixty-four..." 

Endangered Species

Just a few hours before he was to give a speech the other night, Massachusetts governor, Deval Patrick cancelled a scheduled appearance at a local gathering of a men's club when he found out that women were excluded. Until this news item, I had never heard of The Clover Club either.

Today, the Boston Globe editorial praised Patrick for "Skipping boy's night out". The Globe thinks that it is evil for white males to get together to eat, drink and be merry.

On the other hand, the Globe thinks it is OK for women and "other minorities" to establish gender or even race-based clubs - because "there are substantial differences between a club that literally perpetuates an old-boy network and an organization formed to encourage networking among underrepresented groups." Really? Substantial differences?

The only difference I see is a double standard. Maybe the Globe needs to do a recount of who the minorities are these days. In 2009 English speaking white guys are out-numbered by "underrepresented groups."

I don't disagree with Gov Patrick making a personal statement about his participation at a club that excludes a selected group. What bothers me is the editorial assumption that people do not have the right to congregate with people who they feel most comfortable with - even if that means to exclude some groups of people. Secret societies, leagues, clubs, fraternities, associations, cults - Such groups have existed since men lived in caves.

It is clear that the government needs to intervene where "clubs" that are really fronts for criminal gangs, violence-preaching (eg, skinheads) or other illegal activity.
If the group is not conspiring to actively hurt nonmembers, leave them be.

These days, the government enforces a public policy of inclusion. Equal opportunity (ie, minority preference) is mandated at every level of federal, state and local organizations. Government and civil contracts, grants, job opportunities are all subject to affirmative action.

Family wise things have really changed. Women have (understandably) rebelled against their former role which primarily involved childcare, housewifery and provider of connubial bliss. Nowadays, the tables have turned.

Men long for the days when they were treated as kings of their castle, inscrutable Martians who were exempt from the hospital delivery room. Heck, they aren't even the principle breadwinners,anymore. Today, guys have to do everything women do: they are expected to come directly home after work instead of having a few pops at the local watering hole; in many cases they have to shop, cook, clean, watch the kids, etc. Most social engagements are still decided by women, friendships with other couples are dictated by females.
She "owns" all the rooms in the house; if he is good, she lets him have a corner where he can have a TV and a comfortable chair. She monitors his meals, drinks and wardrobe.

So what is wrong with a bunch of guys getting together a few times a year to smoke cigars, tell dirty jokes and have a few drinks.

It used to be The American Way.

Not H1N1

Not to worry. I probably have a common cold, according to a licensed health care professional with whom I have had recent intercourse. (No, not the Tiger Woods kind of intercourse - you people really need to get a dictionary).

Also this diagnosis did not come from my social network of self-appointed health experts (i.e., everyone with an opinion and an email account). They didn't need a stinking diagnosis to offer a cure: "Take antibiotics", "Gargle with salt water", "Bury a dead cat under an elm tree in the moonlight" they tell me. "Leeches", "Irish Whiskey", "Juice", "Seaweed" they shout.

Just a common cold: Tell that to my throat and sinuses; they obviously think that they are entitled to a more interesting diagnosis. But beyond coughing and sneezing there is No fever, no gastrointestinal problems (i.e., probably not the flu & not a bacterial infection).

The Irish whiskey cure seems like it would be worth a shot, I argue. There might be some basis in medicine. After all the alcohol kills bacteria, right? Then Reality pours cold water on that track. A cold is caused by a virus, not a bacteria. Still, the nurse distinctly said to "Drink lots of fluids." My wife - who does not have a medical degree - insists that the nurse meant water-based fluids. I argue that whiskey is 80% water.

This is just another instance of a situation where everyone thinks they know what you should do.

But, in fact, no one knows really knows anything for certain. The Internet is full of conflicting information. One expert says to use hand sanitizers to kill cold and flu germs. Another expert says that rhino virus (common cold) thrives on alcohol! Some experts say wash your hands with hot soapy water long enough to sing "Happy Birthday" Another news item says it doesn't matter if the water is hot. To kill germs you need water to be boiling hot.

Anyway, thanks for all your get well cards and letters - and well-intended advice, however wrong and misguided.