Thursday, July 19, 2012
Lawrence v the State of Texas
The Internet have been abuzz about the Supreme Court since the Affordable Care Act was deemed constitutional... also, gay rights has been a hot topic for the past ten years. Why has gay rights made so much progress in recent years? Are we more progressive? It seems this is the perfect time to bring up John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner vs. Texas.
Sodomy laws have existed in American states since the 18th century. All states have had them in one form or another. The earliest is from the state of Virginia where in 1778 Thomas Jefferson tried to ease the punishment from death to a mere castration. Until very recently, in many parts of America gay men could lose their right to vote and go to jail just for being gay. Because of the private nature of sodomy, these laws were almost never prosecuted. Laws that not prosecuted are difficult to challenge because they never come to trial. No big deal right? Since no one was getting hurt, the laws were harmless. Right? ... Not exactly. Because being gay was illegal, discriminating against them was legal. They could lose their jobs and/or lose housing as a result of being outed. You could basically deny gays service on pretty much anything you chose. The problem activists had for decades was that they couldn't challenge a law if the laws at the root of the problem were not being executed. No one was going to jail for sodomy, so the law couldn't be challenged because they weren't going to trial.
In researching this blog post, I pulled out my dusty copy of the Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions. I was disappointed that Lawrence vs. Texas is not listed. My book was printed 1999 and this decision is too recent (in 2003). I need a more recent copy, apparently. It does list its predecessor Bowers vs. Hardwick (1986). This is the case that Lawrence vs. Texas overturned. In Bowers vs. Hardwick the Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy only applied to "family, marriage or procreation." Since sodomy doesn't fall into this these categories, the majority decision was that gay couples should not have the expectation of the privacy. In 1986, 24 states and DC still had laws against sodomy.
In the Houston area, in 1998, four police officers responded to a bogus call regarding weapons fire. They entered an apartment via an unlocked door with his weapons drawn. No weapons were found but apparently two men were having sex, John Lawrence and Tyron Garner. They were arrested and went to trial. Thanks to some very hard working rights advocates, it eventually went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Texas law was deemed unconstitutional by a 6 to 3 vote, so 13 other similar state statutes were overturned. As you probably guessed, the three minority judges were Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas.
As a straight man, I understand how gay sex can make people uncomfortable, but this is something that most of us get over. We grow up. I don't think I will ever understand why social conservatives, like Rick Santorum and the like, are so against gay rights. Conservatives are supposed to be against "big government," yet they advocate for a government that is big enough to take away the rights of free tax-paying citizens to love and/or have sex with whomever they want. I guess we just add this to the long list of things-I-don't-get.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island is Canada's Rhode Island. PEI is Canada's smallest Province by far with an area 2185 square miles in comparison their largest, Nunavet (808,185 square miles). You can fit about 550 Rhode Island's in Alaska and you can fit 370 PEI's in Ninuvet.
Unlike Rhode Island (RI), PEI is actually an island. It's climate, culture and setting is much more like Vermont (VT) than RI. It is largely pastoral. If you plopped VT into the North Atlantic somewhere and flattened it a bit, it would be an awful lot like PEI. PEI's largest city, Charlottetown, is about the size of VT's Burlington. Up until 1997, you had to take a ferry to the island. In May of that year the Confederation Bridge was built. It is 8 miles long and charges a fee of $44.50 (Canadian) per car when you leave the island. I was disappointed to find out that it is not the longest bridge in the world, not even close. It isn't even the longest in North America, but it is (according to Wikipedia) the longest bridge over ice in the world.
The most interesting things about PEI that I have noticed so far is the reddish copper colored beaches of the south side of the island. The sediments that formed the rocks contained a large amount of iron. This iron over the years has oxidized, forming rust which makes it's sedimentary rocks red. This is a picture I took at East Point, a spot where you can see Cape Breton in far away Nova Scotia in the distance:
When you walk on the beach, you come home with your foot red like it has been rusting.
Unlike Rhode Island (RI), PEI is actually an island. It's climate, culture and setting is much more like Vermont (VT) than RI. It is largely pastoral. If you plopped VT into the North Atlantic somewhere and flattened it a bit, it would be an awful lot like PEI. PEI's largest city, Charlottetown, is about the size of VT's Burlington. Up until 1997, you had to take a ferry to the island. In May of that year the Confederation Bridge was built. It is 8 miles long and charges a fee of $44.50 (Canadian) per car when you leave the island. I was disappointed to find out that it is not the longest bridge in the world, not even close. It isn't even the longest in North America, but it is (according to Wikipedia) the longest bridge over ice in the world.
The most interesting things about PEI that I have noticed so far is the reddish copper colored beaches of the south side of the island. The sediments that formed the rocks contained a large amount of iron. This iron over the years has oxidized, forming rust which makes it's sedimentary rocks red. This is a picture I took at East Point, a spot where you can see Cape Breton in far away Nova Scotia in the distance:
When you walk on the beach, you come home with your foot red like it has been rusting.
Monday, July 2, 2012
Bragg, Guthrie, Bergman and Rossellini
Recently, I shared a list of my top 100 favorite rock 'n roll albums with my Facebook friends. Making lists is something that hyper-vigilant people, like myself, do to pass the time. On this list, you might be surprised to find the album Mermaid Avenue: Volume One by Billy Bragg & Wilco creeping close to the top. Every time I hear anything from it, I want to move it up. I don't use this term lightly, but it might just be a masterpiece. Although, I might just feel that way today because I haven't yet come down from my high of seeing Billy Bragg live last night at the Higher Ground in South Burlington, VT.
Woody Guthrie wrote over 1,000 songs in his lifetime. Most of them were not recorded because recording music in the 1930's and 1940's was very expensive, hence rare. These unrecorded songs don't have music written with them. We have no idea how Woody would have performed them. In 1992, Woody's daughter, Nora, contacted British punk musician Billy Bragg about this problem. She would like these lost songs set to music believing that a new generation of musicians and listeners should be exposed to his songs. Bragg contacted the American band Wilco (perhaps America's greatest rock band) to help him with the huge undertaking and Natalie Merchant for backing vocals. They ended up recording a lot more than one album's worth with over 50 songs. What they came up with is Mermaid Avenue Volumes I, II & III. III was recently released.
I knew all this going into last night's performance. Last night Billy's first set consisted entirely of Woody Guthrie songs. I think he may have talked more in between songs than he actually played, which just seems to happen to performers when they play folk music. During the course of his banter, Billy explained one of my favorite songs on Volume One, "Ingrid Berman." As you probably know Bergman was one of the great Hollywood actresses of the 1940's starring in many Hitchcock films and of course, Casablanca and Gaslight. Early in her career, when she was in her 20's, she was married to a Swedish dentist, but during the shooting of the film Stromboli, she had a scandalous affair with the director, Roberto Rossellini. This didn't go over well with the prissy American public. Interviews were cancelled and she was even denounced on the floor of the US Congress. She eventually marries Rossellini and has two children with him, one of which is the actress Isabella Rossellini, probably most famous for Blue Velvet. Not only was Woody a great writer of social commentary, but he wrote with some sexual gusto and had a thing for the great actress. Bragg quoted Patti Smith saying something like (paraphrasing) "all great artist write with one hand stuffed down their pants." I will never be able to listen this song the same way again:
This old mountain it's been waiting
All its life for you to work it
For your hand to touch the hardrock,
Ingrid Bergman, Ingrid Bergman
I probably should listen more closely to lyrics when I sing along.
Woody Guthrie wrote over 1,000 songs in his lifetime. Most of them were not recorded because recording music in the 1930's and 1940's was very expensive, hence rare. These unrecorded songs don't have music written with them. We have no idea how Woody would have performed them. In 1992, Woody's daughter, Nora, contacted British punk musician Billy Bragg about this problem. She would like these lost songs set to music believing that a new generation of musicians and listeners should be exposed to his songs. Bragg contacted the American band Wilco (perhaps America's greatest rock band) to help him with the huge undertaking and Natalie Merchant for backing vocals. They ended up recording a lot more than one album's worth with over 50 songs. What they came up with is Mermaid Avenue Volumes I, II & III. III was recently released.
I knew all this going into last night's performance. Last night Billy's first set consisted entirely of Woody Guthrie songs. I think he may have talked more in between songs than he actually played, which just seems to happen to performers when they play folk music. During the course of his banter, Billy explained one of my favorite songs on Volume One, "Ingrid Berman." As you probably know Bergman was one of the great Hollywood actresses of the 1940's starring in many Hitchcock films and of course, Casablanca and Gaslight. Early in her career, when she was in her 20's, she was married to a Swedish dentist, but during the shooting of the film Stromboli, she had a scandalous affair with the director, Roberto Rossellini. This didn't go over well with the prissy American public. Interviews were cancelled and she was even denounced on the floor of the US Congress. She eventually marries Rossellini and has two children with him, one of which is the actress Isabella Rossellini, probably most famous for Blue Velvet. Not only was Woody a great writer of social commentary, but he wrote with some sexual gusto and had a thing for the great actress. Bragg quoted Patti Smith saying something like (paraphrasing) "all great artist write with one hand stuffed down their pants." I will never be able to listen this song the same way again:
This old mountain it's been waiting
All its life for you to work it
For your hand to touch the hardrock,
Ingrid Bergman, Ingrid Bergman
I probably should listen more closely to lyrics when I sing along.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Sci-fi and the Creation Myth
No form of fiction tackles the difficult subject of religion more than science fiction. This might seem ironic to some, but science fiction has always been a good way tackle any subject, indirectly, because it gives the writer license to do whatever they want. I once heard Ray Bradbury say that he used the Mars landscape as a setting so often not because he believe in Martians but that he was lazy and didn't want to do any research. It was just easier to make things up. Like Bradbury, a sci-fi writer can write about your religion without you even knowing it. A writer can disguise a religious form of meditation in an alien religious group like the Bene Gesserit or Mentats in Frank Hebert's Dune. They can write about a messiah like Robert Heinlein did with his character, Valentinen Michael Smith, in his Stranger in a Strange Land. Millennialism and images of the devil are prominent themes in Arthur C. Clarke's Childhood's End. Star Trek did it, Star Wars did it with the Jedis, ... heck... the latest Battlestar Gallactica series is just a very long religious elegy. Every person that I know that is interested in religion also reads sci-fi.
Some consider Mary Shelley's Frankenstein a sci-fi novel. The alternative title is the Modern Prometheus. Like the Greek Titan Prometheus, Dr. Frankenstein creates a new form of life. Prometheus created humanity from clay and was punished for it, while his modern namesake, created life from the body parts from grave robbing. The creation myth seems to be everywhere in sci-fi these days. Star Trek uses it with their android character Data and holographic character The Doctor where they confront their creators and fight for their rights as censured beings. The Cylons in Battlestar Gallactica rebel against their creators in what could be interpreted as a religious upheaval of the slave monotheists over their polytheistic creators. The movie director Ridley Scott is not foreign to the creation myth, not only is his latest film Prometheus but his heady take on Philip K. Dick's Do Robots Dream of Electric Sheep? (aka Blade Runner) is all about a rebelling group of androids seeking their creator. They are lead by Roy Batty (portrayed amazingly by actor Rutger Hauer) who seeks their creator so that they can remove the chip that prevents them from being immortal.
Scott's latest film, Prometheus, brings this to a new level. **spoiler alert** The so-called prequel to the Alien series gives us a married couple of scientists, Holloway and Shaw (who can't have children) searching for an alien species, called The Engineers, who they believe created humanity. So they cannot create life themselves but they are obsessed with their creators who are not god but an advanced species from a distant moon. The excursion is funded by an eccentric billionaire who never had a son of own. He created an android son with the name he intended for that his biological son, David, much to the dismay of his daughter who may be an android as well. The created is now, like the mythical Prometheus, the creator. Like the gods of Olympus, the Engineers want to punish us or probably destroy us for what reason, it is not explained. Shaw is also cast into the role of the creator. She is somehow impregnated and gives birth a day later to the xenomorph species from the original series. She freaks out and attempts to kill it ... again creator who is a destroyer and the created that creates. This film is full of plot holes, it is at times captivating and quite compelling but it is one of those films that you leave the theater thinking, "Did I miss something?". It is clear that Scott was trying to say something about the creation myth. What that is might be hiding somewhere in the fog of the 3D special effects or lost in one of the deep chasm plot holes.
Some consider Mary Shelley's Frankenstein a sci-fi novel. The alternative title is the Modern Prometheus. Like the Greek Titan Prometheus, Dr. Frankenstein creates a new form of life. Prometheus created humanity from clay and was punished for it, while his modern namesake, created life from the body parts from grave robbing. The creation myth seems to be everywhere in sci-fi these days. Star Trek uses it with their android character Data and holographic character The Doctor where they confront their creators and fight for their rights as censured beings. The Cylons in Battlestar Gallactica rebel against their creators in what could be interpreted as a religious upheaval of the slave monotheists over their polytheistic creators. The movie director Ridley Scott is not foreign to the creation myth, not only is his latest film Prometheus but his heady take on Philip K. Dick's Do Robots Dream of Electric Sheep? (aka Blade Runner) is all about a rebelling group of androids seeking their creator. They are lead by Roy Batty (portrayed amazingly by actor Rutger Hauer) who seeks their creator so that they can remove the chip that prevents them from being immortal.
Scott's latest film, Prometheus, brings this to a new level. **spoiler alert** The so-called prequel to the Alien series gives us a married couple of scientists, Holloway and Shaw (who can't have children) searching for an alien species, called The Engineers, who they believe created humanity. So they cannot create life themselves but they are obsessed with their creators who are not god but an advanced species from a distant moon. The excursion is funded by an eccentric billionaire who never had a son of own. He created an android son with the name he intended for that his biological son, David, much to the dismay of his daughter who may be an android as well. The created is now, like the mythical Prometheus, the creator. Like the gods of Olympus, the Engineers want to punish us or probably destroy us for what reason, it is not explained. Shaw is also cast into the role of the creator. She is somehow impregnated and gives birth a day later to the xenomorph species from the original series. She freaks out and attempts to kill it ... again creator who is a destroyer and the created that creates. This film is full of plot holes, it is at times captivating and quite compelling but it is one of those films that you leave the theater thinking, "Did I miss something?". It is clear that Scott was trying to say something about the creation myth. What that is might be hiding somewhere in the fog of the 3D special effects or lost in one of the deep chasm plot holes.
Friday, June 1, 2012
US President Reelections - Electoral Votes
Throughout American history, every president (except Woodrow Wilson) that has ever been reelected, has gotten more electoral votes the second time they were elected than their initial election.
The following Presidents have been reelected:
Washington
Jefferson
Madison
Munroe
Jackson
Lincoln
Grant
Cleveland * (non-consecutive)
McKinley
Wilson
FDR
Eisenhower
Nixon
Reagan
Clinton
G. W. Bush
The first was Washington in 1792. He was elected in 1789 with 69 electoral votes in '92, he received almost twice that with 132. Only 10 states voted in the '89 election so our most popular President is the one elected with the least amount of electoral votes.
Jefferson did double his electoral votes by getting 169 in 1804. In 1800, he received 73 which was a tie with Aaron Burr. The US House of Representative broke the tie giving Jefferson 10 and Burr only 4 with 2 abstaining.
Madison went 122 to 128, Munroe went 183 to 231, Jackson went 178 to 219 in 1832. Incumbents had it easy in the early days of our democracy. Then we have to go all the way to 1864 with Lincoln getting 212 over the 180 he received in 1860.
If the 19th century had a personality with rock start status, it was U. S. Grant and he was reelected with a whopping 286 electoral votes in 1872 which is 72 more than his first term. If you count Cleveland because his two terms were non-consecutive, he went from 219 to 277 in 1900. McKinley, our first 20th century president, went to 271 to 292 in 1900.
Wilson was reelected but barely. With the sinking of the RMS Lusitania in May 1915 by a German U boat, his peaceful isolationism was ripe fodder for the hawks of opposing party. He was elected with 435 electoral votes in 1912 with the other three candidates only getting 96 votes combined. But when he was reelected he only received 277, only 23 more than his opponent Charles E. Hughes. We probably would have ended up joining the war in Europe much earlier than we did if Hughes had won.
When Franklin Delano Roosevelt was reelected the first time, he went from 472 in 1932 to 523 in 1936. The following two terms the count did go down with 449 and 432 respectively.
Nixon went from 301 to a whopping 520 which was impressive, until you get to Reagan who went from 489 to 525 in 1984. The 1984 total is highest amount of electoral votes any candidate has received, so far, in American history. Bill Clinton went from 370 to 379 and George W. Bush (our first 21st century president) went from 271 to 286. I know some people still that say he was never elected but that is something for another day or another blog entry.
The reason I have found this so interesting that is that I realized today that if Obama does get reelected, it definitely will not be with more electoral votes than what he got in 2008 with 365. Obama's safe states are considered: CA, RI, VT, HI, ME, DE, MD, MI, MN, MA, NH, NJ, NY, WA, WI and DC. If my math is right that is 182 electoral votes. Romney's safe states are considered AL, AK, AZ, AR , GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MS, ND, NE, OK, SD, UT, WV, WY which (again with my math) is 117. With 239 electoral votes up for grabs (the swings states), Obama would have to get most of them to get more than the 365 he received in 2008. The polls currently show them to be very close. If Obama does get reelected, it looks like he is going for a Wilson reelection. When a president starts off their first term with such a high total like Wilson and Obama, it seems like it would be a difficult thing to do after four years in office.
The following Presidents have been reelected:
Washington
Jefferson
Madison
Munroe
Jackson
Lincoln
Grant
Cleveland * (non-consecutive)
McKinley
Wilson
FDR
Eisenhower
Nixon
Reagan
Clinton
G. W. Bush
The first was Washington in 1792. He was elected in 1789 with 69 electoral votes in '92, he received almost twice that with 132. Only 10 states voted in the '89 election so our most popular President is the one elected with the least amount of electoral votes.
Jefferson did double his electoral votes by getting 169 in 1804. In 1800, he received 73 which was a tie with Aaron Burr. The US House of Representative broke the tie giving Jefferson 10 and Burr only 4 with 2 abstaining.
Madison went 122 to 128, Munroe went 183 to 231, Jackson went 178 to 219 in 1832. Incumbents had it easy in the early days of our democracy. Then we have to go all the way to 1864 with Lincoln getting 212 over the 180 he received in 1860.
If the 19th century had a personality with rock start status, it was U. S. Grant and he was reelected with a whopping 286 electoral votes in 1872 which is 72 more than his first term. If you count Cleveland because his two terms were non-consecutive, he went from 219 to 277 in 1900. McKinley, our first 20th century president, went to 271 to 292 in 1900.
Wilson was reelected but barely. With the sinking of the RMS Lusitania in May 1915 by a German U boat, his peaceful isolationism was ripe fodder for the hawks of opposing party. He was elected with 435 electoral votes in 1912 with the other three candidates only getting 96 votes combined. But when he was reelected he only received 277, only 23 more than his opponent Charles E. Hughes. We probably would have ended up joining the war in Europe much earlier than we did if Hughes had won.
When Franklin Delano Roosevelt was reelected the first time, he went from 472 in 1932 to 523 in 1936. The following two terms the count did go down with 449 and 432 respectively.
Nixon went from 301 to a whopping 520 which was impressive, until you get to Reagan who went from 489 to 525 in 1984. The 1984 total is highest amount of electoral votes any candidate has received, so far, in American history. Bill Clinton went from 370 to 379 and George W. Bush (our first 21st century president) went from 271 to 286. I know some people still that say he was never elected but that is something for another day or another blog entry.
The reason I have found this so interesting that is that I realized today that if Obama does get reelected, it definitely will not be with more electoral votes than what he got in 2008 with 365. Obama's safe states are considered: CA, RI, VT, HI, ME, DE, MD, MI, MN, MA, NH, NJ, NY, WA, WI and DC. If my math is right that is 182 electoral votes. Romney's safe states are considered AL, AK, AZ, AR , GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MS, ND, NE, OK, SD, UT, WV, WY which (again with my math) is 117. With 239 electoral votes up for grabs (the swings states), Obama would have to get most of them to get more than the 365 he received in 2008. The polls currently show them to be very close. If Obama does get reelected, it looks like he is going for a Wilson reelection. When a president starts off their first term with such a high total like Wilson and Obama, it seems like it would be a difficult thing to do after four years in office.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Baseball Uniform Numbers
If you ever get a chance to attend a game at Yankee Stadium, one thing you will get to see, in addition to all the World Series and championship pennants hanging in the rafters, is all the retired uniform numbers. Baseball teams retire the uniform number of their stars in honor of the player who wore the number. One thing you will notice with the Yankees is that most of the numbers they have retired are single digit: 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 among the others. Professional baseball teams didn't start wearing uniform numbers until the 1920's. In this era, players would wear the number of their batting order. The 1920's had the famous Yankee's Murderer's Row of Babe Ruth hitting 3rd (#3 on his uniform) and Lou Gehrig batting 4th (#4). In this era the backup catchers wore #9 and the five starting pitchers wore numbers 10 through 14. This practice became difficult to maintain because managers like to change the line-up throughout the season and fans come to identify a player with their numbers.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
CYA Culture
Imagine this scenario:
You are a professional baseball player on a team with some other incredibly talented athletes. A ball is hit through the middle where neither the short stop or second baseman can get to it. They try but with strained effort. Why don't they try harder? They knew if they got the ball, they'd never be able to make the play at first. So they don't try harder, because they feared making an error. As the ball goes past them, they point to each other with blame as the ball goes into the outfield. Talented athletes with some obvious flaws.
The ball continues into the outfield but the ball continues to roll past the center fielder. Why? He doesn't get the ball because he isn't sure he has the proper paperwork filed to cover himself. His manager hasn't approved his pursuing the ball. This isn't his problem. The other other fielders are busy on the phone with their lawyers to make sure that they are covered.
Okay, you got me, this is an absurd scenario. Clearly if a team acted in this manner, regardless of their talent, they would never win a game. Yet for many corporate offices this is the culture that exists. Covering yourself is king. Doing the right thing for the team, taking ownership of a situation even it would reflect badly on you, seems to be a thing of the past. You hear often about how our society is suffering from a crisis of leadership, but it seems deeper than that. A crisis of management is more like it. When we work in an environment where finger pointing is more likely than collaboration, where asking for help is a sign of weakness rather than strength, then not only the team loses, everyone does the fans, the franchise, the nation.
A few years ago, I found myself in a Providence bar talking/arguing about Max Weber and goal displacement with a couple of strangers. The conversation was so intense that I looked up and noticed the bar had been closed around us. I didn't know I was chatting with the owner. The general feeling was that organizations are bound to lose. Their goals are eventually displaced by a sense of self-preservation. If your organization's goal is to wipe our birth defects, what going to happen to your career, if your organization succeeds. You might lose your job and your career is in shambles. So your goal gets displaced with the goal of self-preservation. One has to wonder if the same can be said for individuals. Given a certain social environment or management style, do people preserve their own ass over the long term goal of their team? Umm ... you betcha! No biggie if you are a barista, but you are a surgeon, designing bridges, building bombs, or even supporting a database, you need to work in an environment where making an error is acceptable, admitting you made is safe and the team has your back. You don't fail as an individual you succeed as a team. If the ball goes through your legs into the outfield, you need to know your teammates will be getting the ball not lining up to blame you for the errors. That is the job of the fans in the bleachers.
You are a professional baseball player on a team with some other incredibly talented athletes. A ball is hit through the middle where neither the short stop or second baseman can get to it. They try but with strained effort. Why don't they try harder? They knew if they got the ball, they'd never be able to make the play at first. So they don't try harder, because they feared making an error. As the ball goes past them, they point to each other with blame as the ball goes into the outfield. Talented athletes with some obvious flaws.
The ball continues into the outfield but the ball continues to roll past the center fielder. Why? He doesn't get the ball because he isn't sure he has the proper paperwork filed to cover himself. His manager hasn't approved his pursuing the ball. This isn't his problem. The other other fielders are busy on the phone with their lawyers to make sure that they are covered.
Okay, you got me, this is an absurd scenario. Clearly if a team acted in this manner, regardless of their talent, they would never win a game. Yet for many corporate offices this is the culture that exists. Covering yourself is king. Doing the right thing for the team, taking ownership of a situation even it would reflect badly on you, seems to be a thing of the past. You hear often about how our society is suffering from a crisis of leadership, but it seems deeper than that. A crisis of management is more like it. When we work in an environment where finger pointing is more likely than collaboration, where asking for help is a sign of weakness rather than strength, then not only the team loses, everyone does the fans, the franchise, the nation.
A few years ago, I found myself in a Providence bar talking/arguing about Max Weber and goal displacement with a couple of strangers. The conversation was so intense that I looked up and noticed the bar had been closed around us. I didn't know I was chatting with the owner. The general feeling was that organizations are bound to lose. Their goals are eventually displaced by a sense of self-preservation. If your organization's goal is to wipe our birth defects, what going to happen to your career, if your organization succeeds. You might lose your job and your career is in shambles. So your goal gets displaced with the goal of self-preservation. One has to wonder if the same can be said for individuals. Given a certain social environment or management style, do people preserve their own ass over the long term goal of their team? Umm ... you betcha! No biggie if you are a barista, but you are a surgeon, designing bridges, building bombs, or even supporting a database, you need to work in an environment where making an error is acceptable, admitting you made is safe and the team has your back. You don't fail as an individual you succeed as a team. If the ball goes through your legs into the outfield, you need to know your teammates will be getting the ball not lining up to blame you for the errors. That is the job of the fans in the bleachers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)