Holiday Mish-Mash

Either I am mellowing, or I have said all I have to say. That said, couple of thoughts/observations:

Had a huge ice dam on my roof the other day, causing melted water to pour down inside my walls. Called around for some help. The roofers that came by were hired on the spot (and, really, could have named a much higher price). My wife was asking if I thought these guys would do a good job; I responded, "Well, they have a business card, they are here, and English is not their native language."

In other words: they had emblems of a legitimate business, no one else had responded, and clearly they were not lazy, good-fer-nuthin' American losers. Racism? Maybe. But those guys spent four hours whacking away at a couple of tons of ice on my roof, then cleaned up my driveway to boot. And all I had to do was cough up some benjamins (versus, say, breaking my back falling onto my neighbors picket fence).

So, is "racism" in favor of so-called under-opportuned minorities bad?

Other observations (after my wife asked what I meant about English not being their native language: she asked "are the Greek?"): Guy #1 had coffee colored skin an tiger eyes (don't know how else to describe it)--I am sure the girls find him very handsome. Guy #2 had darker skin and eyes, but was clean-cut, trim, and worked like the dickens. I will likely be hiring them in the spring for a full roof job.

So, the mantra is that immigrants are oppressed and will only be hired to do crap jobs, the jobs Americans refuse to do. That may be so but, in my observation, the Americans refusing such work are found among the laggards, drunkards, and losers, whereas these disadvantaged immigrants are working their butts off and driving some awfully nice automobiles. Sure, the work is hard, but if you do enough, the pay mounts. Aren't these the kinds of folks we WANT here in the good ole U.S. of A.?

----

Note the second: I remain one of the luckiest men I know, and I here give a hearty shout out to Those Powers That Be (If Any) just to say, "Thanks!" Carrying around this big ball of gratitude is pretty warming this time of year, and I look forward to sharing it with the deserving, regardless of all the usual regardlesses. All you cranks and capital 'L' Liberals and capital 'F' Feminists, Marxists, evangelical atheists, anarchists, and various other social engineers can, well, kiss my big ole inclusive American Azz. Life is good. 'Nough said.

----

Just got back from a trip to the American Interior, you know, those kinds of places totally discounted by Liberals ("But no one *I* know voted for Nixon!"), where Christmas remains merry and folks say hello even if'n they don't know you all that well. Refreshing (and, to be honest, a bit scary: way more churches than I am used to, what with my residence in one of the secular humanist snot-nosed enclaves...). That said, I really, honestly, truly can think of worse things than passive Christianity...

---

WSJ had a GREAT piece on the origins of our two Christmases, A Brief History of Christmas.

Also, I am thinking of moving towards the WSJ's OTHER take on Christmas, or simply adopting a Festivus for the rest of us! And, just FYI, I am not kidding (I never kid about these things). Festivus appeals to my sense of irony and to my pre-Christian roots (my people, as it were, were so lately conquered that they still hark back to their pagan rituals).

Did I say Merry Christmas already?

Uh Oh

So for some time I have laughed about "Child Free" or "I'm Not Kidding" rants; you know, those who have chosen not to reproduce lording their self-righteousness over others. Well, it's gotten worse: environementalists are now haranguing and harassing families with more than two children (I can't WAIT for this to happen to ME, by the way!). I will find the article and link it when I can.

In any case, this is on my mind because just recently I have noticed that my wife is no longer praising her non-pregnantness; indeed, she has begun to talk about how she misses that the youngest is no longer a baby...

I'd better check my finances...

Random Chance

My town is in apoplectic apology mode: seems that Ole Saint Nick has offended someone, so now any mention of Christmas is being wiped from the community. Huzzah.

I was thinking about white guilt; part of its stance is in the "random chance" mode, e.g., "it is totally random that you hold such a position of power and privilege." I am sure you have heard this on college campuses: "I could have gone to your school; it is only random chance that you got to attend, and you only got that because you are a member of the white power hierarchy, and that too is random" or similar claptrap.

But you see, it is definitely NOT random, not at all. When my wife and I decided to make our children, we knew in advance and with complete certainty that they would have us as their parents, that they would enjoy a certain standard of living, that they would be able to claim "legacy" status at some reasonable colleges, and a whole host of similar "privileges." We made our children consciously (indeed, we even know the dates of conception), and consciously provide them with every advantage ("privilege") at our disposal. It is not surprising in the least that they are reasonably intelligent, healthy, and good-looking, with sufficient familial assets to back up their training and education; their creation was not random.

They could not "just as likely have been brown" or Bangladeshi or bastards--we were there, nay, ARE there to make sure that things go their way to the best of our abilities. I do not want them feeling guilty for laying claim to a good family, a good education, or all the gifts and achievements of Western Civ.

No, they should not feel "entitled" to their advantages, they should feel just as they do: damn grateful. So far as I can tell, they do indeed feel that way.

Such a weird world we live in: my community seeks to foster and applaud "pride" in all cultures but its own, seeking there to instill shame and regret. Bosh!

I do not hold one "people" above another, but I certainly hold some cultures over others: the tolerant, forgiving, mobile, striving AMERICAN culture is, in my opinion, the best that Western civilization has to offer (despite such egregious flaws as McDonald's...), and I am rather tired of hearing about how terrible is these United States. Funny, I don't see people lining up to flee; in fact, quite the opposite.

Random (mini-)Rants

Support Our Troops

I am SICK of such bumper-sticker philosophy. First off, the Libs in my town do NOT support the troops; they may support individual service-members, but not "the troops," whom they consider, collectively, as jack-booted thugs. MUCH more important would be SUPPORT THE WAR EFFORT.

I passed a sign this morning, a poster really, a picture of soldiers in the Korean Conflict; handwritten on the sign in black magic marker was a statistic that something like "33,000 US soldiers died in Korea." The actual number is irrelevant, it is the MAGNITUDE that I find interesting.

Fewer than 4,000 US soldiers have died in the Iraq war (yes, losing even one is a tragedy, but that could be solved by means other than non-participation...). That is likely in line with how many would have died in training during the same period, by the way...

How nice for us that we live in a society--at WAR--where all we really worry about is our stock portfolios, what time the kidz birthday party starts, and whether it will be cold or warm today. Sheesh.

SUPPORT THE WAR EFFORT.

Freakin' hypocrites. Kinda like Al Gore screeching about waste, consumerism, and global warming, all the while stomping his HUGE carbon footprint all over the globe. Hypocrites. Like Prius drivers. Like "multiculturalists" (who, apparently, only REALLY admire the "culture" of the former East Germany, i.e., where everyone is equally miserable and grey).

I keep thinking of Ahnahl Schvazhaneggah's first book, "Pumping Iron"; I forget the exact quote, but it is something along the line that while his workouts seem tough, one can either follow them or remain "soft and weak, like most Americans." And that was, what, 30 years ago?!

Grrr....

Enough; my assistant has arrived.

Been Busy

Been busy; certain rants have been posted elsewhere but were a bit more focused, a bit more local, so not quite fit for this forum.

But the world is still going crazy.

The WSJ had some GREAT editorials/Op Eds the other day--each one caused me pained laughter, fearful laughter. The best one--the scariest one--was about the cult of Bush Hatred. I urge you to read it.

How does a logic-based person forge ahead in an increasingly irrational world? How, when I am not even allowed to construct a logical framework, can I engage in "debate?" Some (mostly Liberals, and highly educated Liberals) have openly abandoned logic, and are even proud of it.

"Um, with regard to your stance, let us work from first principles. 2 + 2 =?"
"Racist! I bet you are a homophobe, too!"
"Um, what does that have to do with the number 2?"
"Help! Help, I am being harrassed; I am being made to feel uncomfortable; this person is subjecting me to a hostile environment!"
"But, um, the number 2?"
"Burn the witch! Burn the witch!"

A rational reader might think I am making this up, but although the words are meant to be humorous, I have, at least conceptually, engaged in this exact "debate" (actually, now that I think about it, one early exposure to such "thinking"--and formal repercussions--was all the way back in graduate school in an early online forum--anyone else remember IRC? Funny, funny story: I should relate it some time.)

To even ask a question regarding another's rationale is to invite public condemnation, being hit with some -ismic 2-by-4 to the head.

"Um, why was Santa banned in town?"
"Separation of church and state: people have rights, you know!"
"Santa, though--and despite his saintly moniker--is rather secular, don't you think? I mean, he's not exactly Jesus..."
"Racist! I bet you are a homophobe, too!"
"Um, what does race have to do with Kris Kringle?"
"Help! Help, I am being harrassed; I am being made to feel uncomfortable; this person is subjecting me to a hostile environment!"

You think I am kidding? Sadly, I am not.

(I think way back, way way waaaaaay back to my undergraduate days where I once asked a friend of mine what he was doing for Christmas Break. Someone nearby, not part of the conversation, said very loudly, "It's INTERSESSION"
"Um, come again?"
"Intersession; it's in-ter-sesh-un."
"Huh? Christmas Break? What?"
"Help! Help, I am being harrassed; I am being made to feel uncomfortable; this person is subjecting me to a hostile environment!")

*sigh*

It's not WHOM you know...

The summary of the previous post might be "it's who you know that counts." But that is not perfectly accurate. It is WHO knows YOU that matters (or, even more precisely, who is aware of the quality of your work).

So if your circle is Nintendo players, or online chatters (or bloggers), or BMX bike riders, or Ska/EMO/Goth/Hip-Hop folk (or whatever), then those will be the ones familiar with your work... Hope they're hiring.

Stoicism

Just finished Nassim Nicholas Taleb's Fooled by Randomness; great book. There is a bit about Stoicism:
"Started as an intellectual movement in antiquity by a Phoenician Cypriot, Zeno of Ktion, it developed by Roman time into a life based on a system of virtues--in the anccient sense when virtue meant virtu, the sort of belief in which virtue is its onw reward... The stoic is a person who combines the qualities of wisdom, upright dealing, and courage. The stoic will thus be immune from life's gyrations as he will be superior to the wounds from some of life's dirty tricks."

He points out that it really has little to do with a "stiff upper lip," that there is nothing wrong or undignified about emotion or its display; rather, what is wrong is not following "the heroic or, at least, the dignified path." That is, do the right thing without regard to reward or thanks, without concern for others' reactions, thoughts, or opinions.

He goes on, in a section titled "Randomness and Personal Elegance" to urge that one "exhibit sapere vivere ("know how to live") in all circumstances," summing that advice via:
"Dress at your best on your execution day (shave carefully); try to leave a good impression on the death squad by standing erect and proud. Try not to play victim when diagnosed with cancer (hide it from others an donly share the information with the doctor--it will avert the platitudes and nobody will treat you like a victim worthy of their pity; in addition, the dignified attitude will make both victory and defeat feel equally heroic)... Try not to blame others for your fate, even if they deserve blame... The only article Lady Fortuna has no control over is your behavior."

Act always in a manner that precludes oneself from being considered or treated like a victim.

Hmm...

I recently hired an assistant. I lured him from another firm, paid a higher salary and bonus (higher than this person ever dreamed of earning). I forewent several other candidates, many highly qualified--even more qualified in some ways (at least on paper). Why did I hire the person I did? And why do I relate the story? Because I knew and respected this person's work; indeed had worked with him in the past and wanted to do so again (for my own benefit and the benefit of the firm). He had the skills I needed and, more importantly, I remain confident that he can learn anything needed that he currently lacks. That, at least, is why I hired him.

But, more importantly, I knew him; he was known to me. There are many, many people unknown to me; many of whom actively, consciously choose to be unknown to me--and to others like me (i.e., hiring managers).

I admit that much of Life is luck ("Lady Fortuna," in Taleb's words)--perhaps even more than it should be (but not as much as some would have you believe). One would do well to maximize one's chances of being visited by Opportunty, of being prepared when she knocks to grab hold of her forelock as tightly as possible. Despite one's starting circumstances--which, I agree, might be quite dire for some--one would do well to "do the right thing," to prepare and optimize, just in case, to make the best of the situation. This effort, I believe, feeds on itself, a virtuous circle.

Or one can cry victim, refuse to prepare (indeed, lash out or even denigrate the behaviors that lead to opportunities--or jobs), and believe those that whisper "the world owes you." (Yah, good luck with that.)

I should not be where I am--or perhaps I should be much further along; I just do not, can not know. But I try to maximize what I have been given (within my own very human limitations), and be grateful (and I am). ("How nice for you.")

But really, what is the alternative? To be ever bitter and angry? Predetermined to fail?

True story: Years ago I interviewd a Harvard undergrad for a position. She had green hair. I did not hire her. I learned later that she had dyed her hair the day before in order to prove that those of my ilk were superficial, could not get beyond the surface. Yup; she was right. And unemployed. One of those hired instead (for an entry-level analyst position) is now a portfolio manager, likely on his way to partner. Good job, Green Hair!

Why do we feed and foster the proles (or even moreso the so-called "underprivileged")? Is anyone really over-privileged? I know I could use more privileges! Do I resent Bill Gates (a man whose wealth I do not consider directly tied to his innovation, merit, or worth)? Not only do I not resent him, I do not resent the way he has chosen to waste his fortune (it is, after all, his money). Do I resent the residents of Catalina Island? Nope: but I'd like to be one someday...

Getting off track: just wanted to point out the relative and cumulative benefit of maximizing potential, of "doing the right thing." If you were always maximizing your openness to opportunity, perhaps you too would be in someone's preferred hiring network, lured from your current job to one of (so my employee reports) relative flexibility, creativity, and compensation. Need not be my network--or even field--but one of your own choosing and desire. Or you could just play Nintendo or basketball or whatever. It's your life, and I cannot advise you (indeed, am precluded from doing so due to my "privileged" background and position) what "doing the right thing" is for you and your circumstances. Good luck!

More On (Moron?) Bell Curves

I was thinking about bell curves this morning--and maybe (MAYBE, just maybe) I should be more charitable, i.e., maybe I should try to see the world from more "liberal" eyes (at the very least to understand their world view).

So: let us posit for a moment a bell curve of opportunity, i.e., average choices, good choices (fewer), and bad choices (fewer). Maybe due to my "culture" and/or upbringing and/or community/environment, my bell curve of opportunity was shifted to the right, offering a target-rich environment for "pretty good" choices.

And maybe, if you grow up in some ghetto, your opportunity curve is shifted left, meaning that unless one is paying particular attention, then one might have a relatively higher propensity to make bad choices.

Let us assume that this is so; if so, then, how does one intervene to somehow show the under-opportuned how to make better choices (an especially difficult endeavor given that any attempted "intervention" would likely be seen as, at best, cultural imperialism and, more likely, as "racism"--although I maintain that "racism" is lately and often confused with the larger and simpler "classism" or "culturalism").

Somebody asked me why I have my children enrolled in a particular program targeted at a culture to which they do not belong (Russian math? Jewish after-school? Japanse class?); my response was two-fold: to set what they think of as "normal" (or mu, in bell-curve speak) and to give them a target-rich environment from which to pick appropriate friends. In other words, to increase their chances of success--or, rather, to shift their bell curve of opportunity.

So: are SOME people better able to be "adult" in their choices, i.e., to be allowed complete, Ayn-Randian autonomy? Should other, "differently-abled" over-21-year-olds have their choices restrictd or redirected?

I often argue for individual responsibility while others argue for the collective; perhaps some will benefit from greater independence but, if so, how and whom does one choose? Do Liberals (who, I contend, secretly--even unto themselves--look down on the needy as "less able to compete," i.e., stupid) really want that outcome (no, they just want, like Communists, for EVERYONE to suffer, but suffer EQUALLY).

But maybe there is some kernel there: maybe we need to find a way to shift the opportunity curve rightward. Any suggestions?

Keep on Keepin' On

I graduated college in the midst of economic recession; I and my friends, at that time, BELIEVED (really KNEW) that we would never achieve the middle-class success of our parents; and yet, what else was there to do but plug away?

And, lo, the world changed. And now I am fortunate...enough.

My point (or, the lesson)? Given that the future is inherently unknowable, it serves one well to proceed as if good things will eventually come.

The application? I was recently berated with one of those "you have no idea the obstacles these kids face" diatribes. Yeah, yeah; I know: despite divorce, bankruptcy, family dissolution, and that whole Gulf War thing, I have no idea how "the other half" lives. Liberals say that "these kids" live lives marked by hopelessness, i.e., the BELIEVE (really KNOW) that nothing awaits them no matter how hard they try (better, then, to await boosts and handouts from the Liberals, who think they will get into Heaven that way).

I am more of the Clarence Thomas camp.

On a related thought: I was thinking about "the poor" and the empathy gap (where the rich and the poor are so far apart that mutual understanding is now impossible) and how "the rich get richer," blah blah blah; I was also thinking of the "how NICE for YOU" crowd. And I was also thinking about who really kills whom in this world (Liberals might argue that me and mine kill from the top down, i.e., set up conditions under which the down-trodden seek to kill one another as proxy for their inability to "fight the power"; yeesh).

But being "poor" in the U.S. really isn't a bad deal or, if it is, then why don't people change their circumstances--or at least their zip code? ("How NICE for YOU.") Okay, then why don't grown-ups act like, well, grown-ups, at least insofar as their children are concerned? (hNfY) Okay, then why have *I* been able to more or less follow through on that Life view which, for me, really has not changed since I was 12 (and, by the way, was in contravention--and is still--to much of my family's worldview)?

Those with ability (or luck) prefer meritocracy; those middling to mediocre (and below) prefer some level of [synonym for] socialism (and usually at the expense of the other group). Beyond self interest (i.e., insurance to keep the hordes from stealing one's stuff), does Group A have some responsibility for Group B? If so, what level of responsibility do members of Group B have for themselves?

Personally, insofar as I engage in charitable activities, I prefer those efforts that seek to sort out some likely members of Group A who, for whatever reason, have fallen among Group B. That is, I feel responsibility to help those of my tribe, if you will (because we need more members, THAT's for darn sure!).

By the way: I have been reading Fooled by Randomness, which does little to forward the Group B cause.

In any case: it is my belief that I would continue to live as I do under pretty much any condition. I admit that I have not been tested under all conditions, but I would argue that I certainly have kept on keepin' on under greater extremes than that experienced/endured by many, if not most. Plus, many examples exist of people clinging to principle even unto destruction (think of certain of Primo Levi's characters, or of Levi himself), although there may be self-reinforcing (random) luck involved as well. How NICE for YOU.

I recently read a criticism of Ayn Rand, stating that her adherents are most often young men at the height of their powers, unable or unwilling to empathize with the weak (even or until when they themselves, older, are diminished). Perhaps, though, Fortune really does play a greater hand than we would like.

Oh I am a lucky man
Favored by good Fortune's hand
Far more than I'm deserving.

I had no say in being born
Or where or when it happened to me
It was only Chance that turned the wheel
And made my living easy

Younger Days

This piece, while a bit over-earnest and self-conscious, still conveys some honest thoughts; I think I wrote this in 1995 [ed. note: upon re-typing this, I believe it was part of my graduate school application process...my other thought is that Hemingway would disapprove of the overabundance of adjectives; I do, too.]:

Thoughts on the Occasion of Transitioning from Static-Line to Free-Fall Jumping

Now I have stepped from many an aircraft, and believed Fear to be conquered. But in each instance, I had been irrefutably connected to a parachute-pulling umbilical cord and, really, military operations do not engender such niceties as choice. This time, with nothing between me and the over-zealous embrace of Mother Earth but my own ability to locate an apparently shrinking toggle attached to an ever slenderer rip cord, with my toes over the edge of some shaking, shuddering whirligig with really no right to fly, with a man staring deep into my eyes and shouting "Go!" I was re-acquainted not only with Fear, but also with his bigger brother, Terror.

In that single moment, I foresaw the green-blue-green of my own mortality, understood Nature's primal exhortations pertaining to Fight-or-Fly, and ignored her logic. I jumped.

Many pursuits provide a sense of accomplishment: the quiet precision of the flute, the long reflection of the marathon, the simple pride involved in coin-collecting all suggest that my learning curve is not yet flat. The stage, too, remains exciting, although each word, each reaction is, by definition, scripted (how much more exciting to deliver, in one's best delivery voice, a briefing during which at any time anyone with metal on his lapels may feel free to spit a perhaps not very relevant question to which one had better be able, ex tempore, to formulate some intelligible response). In free fall, none of this matters.

Each time I go up, each time I fall down, I am struck with the utter foolishness of skydiving. To thumb one's nose at violent Death does not, somehow, seem very wise. In fact, it seems inevitable that such nose-thumbing will eventually attract attention.

A long-standing joke differentiates two types of skydivers: those who opened their 'chutes and those who did not. The day an incoherent mess materialized above my head, I found that composure and preparation can indeed prevail. I had, between the cutting of the main and deployment of the reserve, literally the rest of my life for self-assessment.

We allow ourselves so little influence over our lives that we often lose sight of the fragile distinction between being and nothingness, permitting the clutter of quotidian demands to dominate: bills, errands, perceived slights all conspire to cloud our vision. During the long, desert days of the Persian Gulf Conflict, I determined for myself the insignificance of many formerly consuming concerns. The remainder, what is meaningful, is a brief list, but encompasses themes from simple companionship to the tectonic interaction of divergent cultures. Returned to the business and busyness of modern America, I am not immune from misplacing my little list, but hurtling towards the hard ground serves to re-order my priorities and remind me tha certain principles--notably Honor, Duty, Tolerance--are more vital than comfort, or even food.

I am not, during free fall, aware of this narrowing; I am conscious merely, afterwards, of its having occurred.