A Leadership Position: Not always a replaceable cog in the machine

      Please feel free to repost, or restack, as I think it is past time for this to be discussed around the dining table, boardroom, or virtual water cooler.

     When, in 1983, Steve Jobs hired John Sculley to run Apple, the decision was made because it was felt that a person who had successfully run a campaign to improve Pepsi-Cola’s position versus Coca-Cola could also market Apple products amidst increasing competition. This was reasonable, and rational, on paper. But Apple, and its products, are not fashioned around something that anyone can do or produce. While “the power to be your best” wasn’t a bad campaign idea it could have been used by other competitors without much of a change.

1984

     There was a successful collaboration between Steve Jobs and John Sculley for a while with the peak being the iconic “1984” Apple commercial. But the approaches were just too different between the non-tech Sculley and the tech visionary Jobs and Sculley forced Jobs away from Apple in 1985. Jobs headed off to found NeXT where he wanted to re-create a new Apple from scratch using his experience at Apple. Technically, he was very successful with the NeXT cube used as the software and hardware base for Tim Berners-Lee initial work on the World Wide Web. Commercially, it was not as successful as the journey towards perfection tends to be a costly process. NeXT eventually folded and its modified UNIX® (the ancestor of Linux®) became the basis of Apple’s OS X operating system.

Beyond Apple

     So, is this a newsletter/blog about Apple? No, though the Apple/Sculley/Jobs situation is a great example. The board of Apple wanted Jobs to bring in an experienced executive to run the company. That might have worked for another company but not for Apple.

     This same attitude persists, through today. Boards of directors will compete against each other for the best-known, or highest “ranked”, executive. They treat them as cogs for a machine. If they can run a company making widgets at that place then they can do the same here. Maybe. If they are paid $200 million at Company A then they are surely worth it and they might come over here if we offer them $300 million and an espresso machine. It sounds silly and it is silly and it is a large part of the reason why the ratio of pay between CEOs and line workers is totally out-of-control nowadays within the USA.

Roles of a CEO

     A CEO basically has three roles. One of these is to be the figurehead, or icon, for the company. While the need for a figurehead is true for all companies, it is particularly true for companies that are trying to improve market perception of the product or brand. In this situation, perhaps pay can be justified as though they were a celebrity (sports, music, acting, …). Of course, I’m not at all certain that celebrities should be paid so much but the case can be made that, in some cases, the CEO is to be treated as a celebrity. Steve Jobs, Lee Iacocca, Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffett, and more can be considered in this category. One of the first within US history was probably Henry Ford.

     While it is true that a small percentage of CEOs can be seen, and “justifiably” paid, like a celebrity or icon, the great majority do not qualify for such and should be paid much less. All of them, however, do function as the “head” of the company. Sometimes they are actively visible and sometimes they work behind the scenes.

     The second role is as an internal leader for the company. This is important (as Apple discovered within their fiasco). Even if the employees are not treated great, the employees need to feel like their efforts matter to the company. Decisions must be made and communicated in a constructive fashion. The CEO has the “last buck” stopping at their desk and it is vital they are aware, communicate, and take responsibility.

     Any leader can make bad decisions but good leaders recognize, acknowledge, and take responsibility for those bad decisions and redirect before harm occurs. Great leaders work with others whose skills, and expertise, compliment their own skills such that they make very good decisions most of the time. Bad leaders either fail to make timely decisions or make decisions without paying any attention to feedback or outside information. Terrible leaders not only mostly make poor decisions but surround themselves with sycophants (or “yes people”) who will reinforce the tendency to make poor decisions.

     The third role is in the area of networking. This is important for understanding what is happening in the market within which the company’s products are competing. It is also important for making others in the industry aware of what the CEO’s company is doing. New product ideas (and features) occur as a result of networking as well as internal feedback. Public collaboration (cabals and price fixing need not apply) may be of mutual advantage. To know, and be known, within the industry — THAT is the question.

Can a great soft drink CEO be a great tech CEO?

     In the case of Apple/Sculley, the answer was no. Is such a situation always a bad decision? I don’t have enough knowledge and experience to give a definitive answer but my basic feelings are that it CAN work for certain market segments. It is very difficult in the tech industry. In the processed food industry, it is likely very easy.

     If a company has an icon in the driver’s seat then that icon needs to know the product(s) of the company forward, backward, historically, and sideways. Or they have to present themselves as knowing such. If the company does not have an icon in charge, then that CEO can perform, or delegate, the other roles, as long as they have good supporting team members.

What about company employees other than the CEO?

     People filling certain roles can be critical within a company’s long-term plans and ability to support existing products. They can be considered to be mini-CEOs and, within their subdomain within the company, can be treated, and analyzed, in the same ways as the CEO. The head of a product division, for example, may be known within the industry for that product as well as having in-depth knowledge of the product, and people working on that product. This is certainly a definite advantage for the company.

Analysis of needs

     When a CEO is placed, or replaced, within a company there is a need to analyze just what roles is the person to fulfill. Although not titled a CEO, when Ronald Reagan was chosen by his party to be the Presidential candidate, it was to fill the first role of a CEO. He was to represent and be the figurehead of the company (USA). The second and third roles of leadership and networking were left to others behind the scenes and not in the spotlight.

     If the board believes that an icon is needed for the company then, by all means, compete with other companies for that iconic/celebrity position. But, make sure that either the person is capable of filling the other roles or make it clear to them that they will not be controlling such duties. It may be necessary to fill an additional position at the same time to formally (or informally behind the scenes) handle the other duties.

     What if an icon is not truly needed? It isn’t needed for most CEO-level positions. The board (or other group of searchers) must find someone who can be adequate at the figurehead position but who excels in the roles of leadership and networking. Pay them well, in accordance with company performance, but don’t treat them as a celebrity. They are a working stiff who is expected to do their job well and produce results.

Conclusion

     There are broadly known icons within business. They are stars and celebrities. But most are not such icons and should not be paid as celebrities. They are working stiffs expected to do their duties well and who should be well, but not extravagantly well, paid and treated. By paying attention to needs and matching such to a candidate’s abilities, good long-term choices can be made.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Changes arriving for the Future: Sometimes necessary things don't just spontaneously happen

     Back in 1811, the Luddite movement started in Nottingham, England. It was composed primarily of weavers and home textile workers who had lost their jobs as the looms and cloth production plants became automated. People who had developed skills all their lives, sometimes as a third or fourth generation craftsperson, found themselves with no way to support themselves and family. They would mask themselves and destroy factory equipment, trying to regain their livelihood.

     Of course, the tides of change overwhelmed them. Many suffered. Most survived and retrained with nostalgic stories of their past lives. They had no support from the English government which gave full violent support to the owners of the factories.

Technology changes whether we want it to or not

     This is not an uncommon scenario throughout history. The advancement of the automobile pushed horses (literally) out to pasture and changed roads, use of land, and an entire industry which went from supporting the living horse to support of the “iron horse” (which term was primarily applied to locomotive engines but could apply, in principle, to the personal automobile). As Danny Devito says in “Other People’s Money”, a couple of suppliers of horse harnesses and “buggy whips” survived and they probably made “the best buggy whips ever”. But the vast majority of leather workers had to find other outlets or trades.

     As is true with the climate, people are used to change. Humans have survived throughout the centuries because they are adaptable. They make tools, they move, they change their daily habits. But a mass of people can adapt to change that takes place over multiple generations (hundreds of year) much more easily than they can over a period of a couple of years or even a decade.

     Self-service options are available at more and more stores and fast food restaurants. At the grocery store, my wife and I avoid the self-checkouts. Why? Though, by ourselves, we do not make much difference we are putting on the brakes, just a little, on a transition that is happening too quickly for people to adapt to.

Rapid change requires coordination, including climate change

     Some islands (primarily in the Pacific Ocean) with only low elevation are disappearing. Their people need someplace to move to. Some areas that have crops used to regular rainfall are having periods of drought on a more frequent basis. They need crops that are bred for the newer climate and/or different crops that will work in the new climate. The same holds for areas that are now experiencing more rainfall — especially when it occurs in multiple brief periods causing flash floods and mudslides. New reservoirs may be needed and, preferably, they need to be designed such that they do not disrupt the local ecology too badly. I fear greatly what will happen as the glaciers, providing major sources of water to large populations, disappear.

     100-year-floods are now occurring every five years. Hurricanes are stronger and more frequent. Tornadoes are happening in areas of the US that have no recent memory of tornadoes. It is too soon to know if earthquakes, and reactivated volcanoes, have generally increased but there certainly have been a few global ones that were unexpected. When they happen off the coast, tsunamis need to be allowed for.

     Such phenomena are occurring now. In the relatively near future, they are likely to get worse. Population shifts need to be coordinated between governments. Support, in both transition subsidization as well as hybridization and crop planning, for farmers and resource harvesters needs to be increased. New building regulations need to be made to have housing better resistant to new weather disasters and climatic situations. Is your government actively working on such? The government in the US is definitely not.

Technology changes directly lead to economic needs.

     Some technology changes can make smooth transitions. People typing on computer keyboards is not much different from typing on typewriters (though the ease of mistake correction can lead to “bad” typing habits). Using calculators (or calculator apps on phones) is not that much different than using slide rules, although I am sure the manufacturers of slide rules would not agree with me. I received a beautiful bamboo slide rule for my high school graduation. Small iterations are noticeable but not alarming. Most people can adapt.

     The Luddites saw a transformation in a very few years that displaced their skills entirely. Right now, executives are being told all kinds of things about what AI can do and they are leery of continuing business as usual. Perhaps they are right but they are also running into situations where AI can NOT improve things in the ways they were told, or hoped. This AI bubble is making everything shaky and there is a decent possbility that a large section of workers will not just have to learn new skills in their profession but may have to change professions.

     There is a general consensus that AI will displace many administrative and clerical jobs. It is much less certain about the technology sector. Some high level administrators are loudly proclaiming that they can get rid of 90% of their staff. Others indicate only a minor change (primarily a requirement of AI experience before hiring). Only time will tell. However, the delay, and uncertainty, is putting new graduates in Computer Science through purgatory. Two of my sons are among them. Other disciplines, and recent graduates, are also affected but not as much as within technology majors.

     Consider a store, in which one quarter of its staff deals with collecting money from customers in transactions of buying products. If you have lots of stores no longer needing one quarter of its staff that adds up to a lot of people.

Will there be jobs available for those who want them?

     No one knows. Historically, technology changes have left holes that were rapidly filled as new technology led to new job types and positions. This change is somewhat different however in that both the repetitive labor jobs (automation) and creative/interpretative jobs (AI) are being assaulted. It is pretty well certain that new types of jobs will be needed and there must be a market for them in order to work within existing economic models.

     There is a definite possibility of further increases in income inequality. With continued automation and AI increments, a business might be able to reduce staff by 25 to 40%. Presumably, the workers remaining are the ones with the greatest experience and skills to continue to be useful in the business. If they are paid in accordance with their contributions then profits will be distributed in a more equal fashion. If the remaining staff continues to be paid the same as before, then profits will rise and be directed to the pockets of owners of capital and stockholders, which will increase income inequality.

     Populations continue to increase their average ages and the numbers in their oldest brackets. This is happening at the same time as population growth levels off or shrinks. Health care needs are expected to grow considerably but the economic system in the US does not support this and the US healthcare system is more and more expensive and much less dependable (on purpose to increase profits).

     Jobs that require physical presence should be safe through this shift in the job market. Trades (electricians, plumbers, carpenters, …) should be safe until automation/robotics is adequately flexible to do the same type of work. Social/health work will continue to grow as population ages and population pressures increase. In order for such to be paid, some changes in the infrastructure will be needed. Jobs requiring originality, creativity, and aesthetic judgement should continue to be safe and even potentially expanding. Note that it can be envisioned that continued advances of AI and automation might still put these positions in danger.

     What would those potential new jobs be? Most of them would exist in the “soft”, non-physical, job areas. The incorporation of such may require economic changes. The spread of wealth, or reduction of income inequality, would allow greater use of, and payment for, such new “soft” professions. That will be greatly resisted.

Conclusion

     Humans have survived for thousands of years because they can adapt to changes. But, for rapid change, coordination and planning is needed to minimize suffering and thrashing. In addition, concentration of wealth and resources to a very minor section of the population will make it much more difficult to create new job niches and categories with livable wages.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Trickle down, Spill over, and Bubble Up: Terrible ideas can be camouflaged by cute names.

     I remember riding on the bus to work back in late 1980. The bus driver was enthusiastic about the election of Ronald Reagan. “The Gipper”, as appropriate for an actor out of Hollywood, had great charisma and could sell a box of gravel to people and convince them it was a box of diamonds. He wasn’t a con person like recent folks but he would have made a great used car salesperson.

Ronald Reagan was the consummate charismatic presenter

     Sometimes Ronald Reagan was called “the first Teflon President” because nothing ever seemed to stick to him. His terms had a bit higher than average numbers of scandals and problems — but nothing close to current times. He just smiled and waved his hand and everyone just said “gee, what a great guy”. You couldn’t always remember just what he said but, golddarn it, he said it so WELL.

     Gary Trudeau would write Doonesbury comics referring to Reagan by “rose-colored glasses”. The world looked so simple and nice through his vision and words.

     It’s impossible for me to know, and possibly difficult for anyone to be certain about, just how much Ronald Reagan was involved in the creation of various policies and ideas — but he was the spokesperson and he made people (in general) happy about them.

Reversal of the New Deal on the road back to a “Gilded Age”

     This was the start of the reversal of the “New Deal” which was instigated to protect the general populace against the greed and carelessness of the rich and large corporations. It’s been a long process but it has continued along for the past 40 years to where we are. Huge income inequality, virtually non-existent taxes for many large corporations, purchased legislators, and ratios of income between CEOs and workers that are dealing with close to astronomical numbers. This situation is quite similar to what existed before the Great Depression happened. Hopefully, we will not need to enter into another Great Depression before restoring sanity to the economy. The ramifications of the AI shift and automation within the labor pool will require something more than the policy changes of the New Deal.

Ideas & Interpretations is my established substack offshoot for Technoglot and a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Trickle down and Splash over

     The primary economic policy injected into the US economy during the Reagan administrations was called “trickle down”. The idea, sold by President Reagan, was that if taxes were decreased for large businesses and the rich then the additional money they retained would then “trickle down” and increase the general wealth of the rest of the population. It was balderdash then and it has been close to universally agreed to by economists that it is still balderdash.

     The “trickle down” never manifested. With those increased pools of money that were retained by the rich and large corporations, they invested in various things that would bring them even more money. They DID pass along money to others but it was in a way that I call “splash over” — because that money was distributed to the lowest income earners that provided services for them. The pools filled up and the water splashed over to reach the ground. Some bounced back up to minor business owners but most was reserved for services and labor.

Bubble Up is not just a carbonated drink

     If trickle down and splash over don’t provide an equitable, vibrant, economy then what would one call the economy that resulted from the New Deal? I call it “bubble up” in contrast with the misnomer of “trickle down”. Within bubble up, we have a large, thriving, middle class that can save, educate and take care of their families, and look forward to a decent retirement after having worked hard for a number of years.

     We also have a group of lower income folks that work hard for a living wage. They don’t have a lot extra but, without potential health care disasters looming over their heads like a guillotine, they are able to live life without being in a state of panic when an accident, or injury, occurs.

     Unlike the folks being resurrected by the original New Deal, currently our dysfunctional Congress has no plans for what to do with the remainder of the populace who are willing, and able, to work but for whom there is no job. I will expand upon the topic in a newsletter to come but, with AI and automation displacing workers, we will soon (if not already there) end up with more people able and willing to work but with no open positions existing.

Bubbling

     Besides the contrast to the theory of trickle up, why do I call it bubble up? All of these middle and lower income people are working, producing, and earning. They have the resources to spend and, while spending, they generate profits for other businesses. These profits indeed bubble up to owners and stockholders. Rather than some erroneous idea that the wealthy will actively take care of everyone else, it relies on the structure of capitalism to produce wealth that is distributed according to effort and ability with profits accumulated by the owners of capital. Trickle down squeezes the middle and lower class like sponges to drain them. Bubble up encourages them to thrive and keep resources, and money, flowing through a healthy ecosystem.

     So, if it is so beneficial to the economy and society, why isn’t the concept embraced by everyone? Unlike other economic “isms”, capitalism doesn’t require perfect people to make it work but, by itself, it still allows greed, selfishness, and obscene accumulation to occur. And once an oligarchy is allowed to settle in it requires a consensus in others to stop it. Or a Great Depression.

I prefer the peaceful consensus and resurrection of the Renewed Deal. How about you?

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Wanted: A Plan for the Future: We have shown that we can do it -- so why don't we?

     Artemis II just splashed down upon returning to the Earth. The mission had a few hiccups but, in general, it went well. It had a goal, that goal had various components to make it happen, and we set it in motion. Other segments of the program are expected to happen — and I hope they do. Personally, I had always expected the first lunar colony around 1980 — but priorities shifted a lot after the 1960s.

     How did the priorities shift? Why did we say “well, we did as Kennedy challenged us to do — we had humans walking on the moon before the end of the 1960s — so that’s it?” A lot of it (in my opinion) had to do with the myriad numbers of problems that we had to deal with on the planet Earth. They existed in large numbers. And they still do. Of late, it seems that we are actually heading backward on a number of the areas that we seemed to make progress on in the 1960s and 1970s.

     We diverted our energies and focus from expansion into space to use those resources on problems on Earth? But did that happen?

A Shift from Leadership towards a Goal to a Government of Band-aids

     This is admittedly just my opinion, but why did this shift occur? I think that an emphasis on polls is one area of change. Rather than having a long-term view for the country and policies, the results of polls on particular issues became of more urgency. This is similar to the movement of businesses from long-term development and vision to quarterly reports.

     Ever since political parties developed in the late 1780s, there has been competition for voters such that one party (almost always only two primary parties in the US) will “win” over another. Each party has their “platform” which is a listing of their published priorities about issues. In theory, the voters will review those platforms and decide upon the party closest to their own points-of-view.

     Each individual legislator, or candidate, will have variations in their priorities from the political party platform. But, over my lifetime, the platform has been used less and less. This is true both during the election campaign and after the election has occurred. Once again, this means a shift towards the most hotly contested issues at the moment. Short term conquers long term.

     Perhaps this is an aspect of societal reduction of attention span?

The Journey towards Goals produces many Benefits

     In the 1960s, the US had a goal as a country — land humans on the moon. Note that this goal also had some effect on other countries. As part of that goal, we boosted our education system and encouraged both general learning and STEM focus. The government worked closely with private industry to solve problems needed for the goal. New materials. Transistors. Continued improvement in what would be known as computer technology. Medical instrumentation and monitoring. Communication. Cordless Tools. And so forth. Just do an Internet search on “things developed as a consequence of the space race of the 1960s”. You may be amazed.

     Was this due to the specific goal? Was it that we were challenging space? No. We had a focus. The goal might have been to establish a working laboratory on the ocean floor in the Pacific. It might have been to go a year without a war. It might have been to have accessible, healthy, drinking water for the world. The more general the positive goal, the more general the needs and the more widespread the benefits. The more difficult the goal, the more possibilities for side-effects. Note that negative goals (such as wars) also have spinoffs for developments that CAN be used for peace but, overall, are just not worth the price in human lives.

     Goals can also be very specific. Let’s find a cure for the “common cold”. Let’s eliminate obesity within the country. Jimmy Carter and the Carter Center went after the guinea worm disease and have almost eradicated it over the course of 40 years. Let’s cure cancer! Specific goals have side benefits also though those benefits are less likely to be widespread.

Goals are necessary

     Can you specify a national goal at present? For the USA? For your own country? I can’t for the USA.

     Oh, there are various “band-aid” approaches. The Affordable Care Act helped to decrease bankruptcies and the number of people without access to healthcare in the US — but it was only a bandaid on the road to taking proper care of all the people within the US. There are various regulations that have been put into effect (or, lately, repealed) that address an improvement in CO2 production but not a national goal. Please don’t think that I disparage band-aids. They can be useful in delaying final problems (even death). But they aren’t addressing the goal and they don’t have nearly the number of benefits.

     What will happen when (not if) AI and automation shift the economy such that we have many more people than available jobs? Climate change will create great shifts in populations, crops, living circumstances, and needs. As education improves and we shift away from manual agriculture the birthrate decreases. That means global populations are aging and need more general care. Can we? Are we prepared?

What happens without a goal?

     Read the newspaper. Read, or watch, the various news streams. Check out corporate media. The reality that we need to fact-check items that we are told is, in itself, a very important reflection on the health of society.

     If a person’s house burns down, the neighborhood comes bearing casseroles and blankets. These may be people that you have never met — but they come. A tornado hits a town and you can find people helping others all through the town. After the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, stranger helped stranger and grew to know each other.

     Localized disasters rarely bring about long term changes in behaviors but they do show what people can do when they work together.

The specific positive goal isn’t as important as just having a goal

     People can (and do) argue that space exploration is not important. I disagree — but that isn’t important. The goal is what is important. Goals give purpose. Goals give direction. Goals foster unity rather than divisiveness.

Give me goals. Give me leaders who are leading the country toward positive goals.

Give our children futures.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. If you feel that these posts are worthwhile to you, please consider getting a subscription via my substack home. Paid subscriptions are very helpful to encourage me to keep putting down letters into the files -- but free subscriptions are still very welcome as my primary goal is to continue to give back to the community that has given so much to me.

Paying Back and Paying Forward: Passing energy around keeps society thriving

     The novel “Pay it Forward” gave a name to ideas which existed within philosophy for many years. The concept of paying it forward existed but, without the specific phrase, it was difficult to express quickly. The words, and concept, of paying something back had already been an inherent part of commerce and other aspects of life.

Paying it back

     Paying it back is an easy concept because it has been in use for so long. Paying it back is giving back to the one(s) who gave you some equivalent thing. It is possible to “pay back” multiple people (such as a work group). Someone loans you money when you need it, you pay it back when you have it available. Someone babysits for you when an emergency meeting comes up unexpectedly — you babysit for them when they have a need and you are able to do it.

     Paying it back does not require it be in the same form. Someone loans you money when you need it, you notice an opening for a job position that your friend might qualify for and you relay the information to them. There are different needs that a person may need within the course of their life and each of them could end up being something to pay “back” or “forward”. Some categories are:

• money/finances

• time

• favors

• information

• support

• social reputation

• loyalty

• attention or recognition

• protection or advocacy

• revenge

Paying it forward

     Paying it forward means it is not in response — it is done because you can and because it is a positive interaction and generative of benefits to the other(s) and (indirectly) to your own well-being.

     “Paying it forward” is centered around the concept that none of us can truly live alone — we all need something from others and others have needs that we can supply. It can be in any of the above categories (except revenge which, by definition, is in response). It might be economical (money), it might be societal interaction, it might be material goods, it might be access to job openings.

Phases of life

     My aunt used to talk about people being more able to pay something forward or back in different ways depending on the period of life one is in. Stereotypically, when a person is young, they have lots of energy and possibly some time but less likely money — then they can do those time-consuming tasks such as going door-to-door for a good new candidate for a local campaign. Later, as one “settles in” to a career or family, the time tends to disappear (exactly where, I never quite figured out) but there is still some energy and a bit more money. If fortunate in life, as the energy and time dwindle, one hopes there are greater financial resources to help. Time, energy, and money seem to form a triangle of balance in life which shifts in time and situation.

     One aspect of paying back is in the situation of generations. If we are fortunate (and too many unfortunate situations exist), then we are raised by our parents, grandparents, or guardians. We, in turn, pay back our parents by paying forward in the form of taking care of our children. Depending on the social culture, there may also be some direct caring of our parents in their later years.

     But what if our parents are no longer around? What if we cannot have, or do not want, children? People still have the opportunity to pay it back/forward via volunteering in a daycare or a senior center or some other positive aspect of our social environment.

     For most people, no ledger exists for “debts” where the interactions are written down. It is a regular part of the cycle of life, and needs, and participating only by receiving without engaging in the corresponding “payment” forward will starve society and yourself.

Society thrives best when many unplanned interactions of energy are returned and given.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Flaws: Why are flaws so endearing?

     I have a good track record in writing, and publishing, non-fiction and technical books. Having been in computer science areas for over 40 years, this type of structure and methodology comes easily to me. Practice, practice, practice. But, I’ve always wanted to write (and, preferably, to sell) fiction. Fiction requires different skills. Of course, the remedy is the same as for non-fiction. Practice, practice, practice. But the skills built up over my career do not easily transfer to writing fiction.

     In order to have something that people want to read, there must be conflict, problems to solve, or growth. Such challenges should be relatable to the reader. But these challenges may be in the external or the internal. The external ones are considered to be problems to overcome. The internal challenges are “flaws”, and mistakes that arise from those flaws, which then affect the external and create problems that did not previously exist.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

     In the 1950s and 1960s, there was a group of science fiction authors that wrote “hard” science fiction. Many of these authors had, as their primary source of income, jobs in scientific fields. Problems often had to do with making something work or repairing something or achieving a specific goal. These external challenges were straight-forward. There were steps to be taken, situations to analyze, and a moment of triumph.

Challenges used to only apply to the situation — flaws optional

     The person present, while the problems were addressed, was somewhat secondary and many writers (such as Isaac Asimov, in my opinion) had difficulties including believable relationships, between multiple people, within their work. The problems of the individual, if brought into the story at all, concerned their needs to survive. As a person who started to read from comics, I would compare these situations to those of Superman (and DC comics in general). It is not a coincidence that the superheros of that period had much in common with the science fiction writing of the times. Problems, overcome, solutions.

     Move forward to the 1960s and 1970s, and character development became much more important. The plots of Spider-man (and other characters in the Marvel universe), were more character-driven — needing the ability to take care of Aunt May to be as important as figuring out how to beat the villain.

     The authors of the 1950s and 1960s wrote (in my opinion) some really great stuff. Mission of Gravity by Hal Clement and the Foundation series by Isaac Asimov are such that have endured the test of time. There was also a lot of throwaway “pulp” fiction, but there is always a lot of forgettable art/music/movies that the best stand out from. It is the same in current days.

     Even the 19th and early 20th century writers, such as Jules Verne, H G Wells, or Edgar Rice Burroughs, followed a pattern of step by step.

     As can be deduced, when I started releasing my fiction, I followed in the footsteps of the old “hard” writers. For my young adult science fiction book, Rumblings in the Reef, the book I created was a world-building book. The protagonists, a group of “high school” students, inhabited a world where they were part of a species of people evolved from fish. They face challenges, and a specific problem, and they set out to solve it. But the character building was secondary. And that is where my problems, and those of the old “masters”, overlap. Creating believable, and interesting, characters was not their forté and it must become part of my skills.

[Note that mermaids and such are mammalian and probably, like whales, came from land ancestors who moved back to the ocean. The fish, or piscine, sapients face different components of life than those with a background of mammalian life.]

The literary flavor du jour

     Literary agents (as do movie executives) love something of the nature like “this recent blockbuster plus these shifts and differences”. If a type of genre is selling now, they want more of it and that is all they want. When A Wrinkle in Time came out, it encountered a lot of rejections (26 rejections) but it changed the course of children’s literature. Many may not remember it now, but the Harry Potter series was rejected 12 times before effectively making it cool again to read (at least, for a while). I’m not saying my book is of the same quality as these two but it does NOT blend in with the current book themes that are selling — and has been of no interest to literary agents (so I ended up self-publishing). A book that MIGHT have been of interest to publishers in the 1950s does not thrill those of current days. Perhaps it would still be of interest to readers of today — perhaps not.

     Immerse ourselves into the worlds of current themes. Magicians, dragons, vampires, special schools, romantasies, and so forth. Harry Potter is a brave, loyal, righteous character but he also makes a lot of mistakes. He keeps information to himself to his disadvantage and to the disadvantage of others. He forgets things at the worst times. His focus totally disappears when faced with too many obstacles. In spite of various abuses of authority he has experienced, he still expects those in authority to be proper and good and overlooks strange behavior (except with Professor Snape). And so forth.

Flaws connect with the spectator

     Would Harry survive without an author continuously creating saving events? Probably not. Certainly, he couldn’t have been a protagonist in a 1950s book trying to make their way back to Earth without an adequate supply of food or oxygen. For every person like myself who says “but Harry, don’t you remember that particular item?” there are ten readers saying “he forgot that but I bet he makes it out of the fix”. The flaws make him human. They make him relatable. They make him a bestseller.

     It’s not just Harry Potter, of course. There are many, many movies and books which quickly reach a point where, if the protagonist picked the better choice, the book or movie would soon come to a conclusion. Luckily for the reader/viewer, they often don’t make that choice. And so it continues.

Flaws generate the obstacles

     If, in a character-driven book, things seem to be going much too well, you may rely on a mistake being made, or an action not being done, or a villain taking twenty minutes to head off to another room to allow an automated death to occur. Occasionally, a reader/viewer will say “if they had only …”. But they don’t and that means the end of the book or movie is still another thirty minutes away.

Something to Cheer About

     Having flaws may be human but overcoming those flaws is what gives us something to cheer about. If they did it, maybe so can I?

Perfection equals Fragility

     The protagonists in those 19th and early 20th century novels sometimes made bad decisions — or decisions that might have made sense at the time the book was written but seems absolutely nuts looked at through a 21st century eyeglass. But, more often it was an exterior event. In The Count of Monte Cristo, the drama gets involved with a greedy magistrate, a jealous rival, and an ambitious and unscrupulous fellow seaman. If someone is placed upon a pedestal of perfection, then they must be knocked off. The very idea of perfection is mirrored with the reality of fragility of that state.

The struggle to create the flaws

     As a person with a science background, when I see a problem I want to fix it. So, creating characters with flaws is a problem for me. I hope there are those that still enjoy the problem being solved but I am aware that there are more who want to cheer the underdog, feel good when flaws are overcome. And be lovable — not just respected.

Our lives are beds from which we have the opportunity to learn and grow.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Leading, and loaded, questions: And other ways to bias questions and polls.

      “When did you stop beating your spouse?” Ludicrous, but such questions happen. By phrasing the question such that some type of foundational axiom is assumed, you bias the situation and make it very difficult for the person to answer. In a poll, the answer, “I have never beat my spouse” is highly unlikely to be part of the limited choice of answers. In a direct interview, it is easy to edit the situation to make the reader or viewer assume that there is some basis for the question. A firm denial may make the responder sound defensive. Perhaps the best response, in a verbal exchange, would be to invoke humor — respond with “that’s the question I was planning to ask you!”.

     Such questions can be called leading questions, loaded questions, presupposition, or begging the question. In the court of US law, this situation of embedding an accusation within a question, is called “leading the witness”. The same thing can occur with inexperienced counselors and can be part of the process for implanting false memories.

Some additional leading questions examples (derived from Google searching):

• “You enjoyed the movie, didn’t you?”

• “How much do you love our new product?”

• “Wouldn’t you agree that our service is the best in the industry?”

  Any question that requires a “yes/no” response — that is not referring to factual data — is almost always leading. “Does 2 come after 1” is a factual question with a binary response. “Do you approve of Politician A’s desire to improve schools” is a question with two embedded biases — it states there is a politician’s desire that may, or may not, exist and it gives a vague directive that few would disagree with (“desire to improve schools”).

It is too easy to manipulate from either direction — the question or the responses.

     Have you ever encountered a poll (or a test, for that matter) where you said “Where is option E”? For polls, that is often deliberate. For tests — well, they probably don’t do it deliberately but it is probably done because of too little, or too much, experience.

What is the color of the sky?
a) Red
b) Yellow
c) Blue
d) Green

     The creator of the test PROBABLY meant the answer to be C (blue) but have you ever seen a sunset, or sunrise, that contained red, yellow, or orange? Very likely. It would have been better to rephrase the question to “What color is the sky, when not obscured by clouds, most of the time?” By the way, it is not unusual for the sky to appear green near tornadoes.

     I have seen something very similar to the following in a poll. I found it amazing that anyone would not see it as just a way to implant false information — but, apparently, many don’t see it that way. Note that it misleads on BOTH the question and the response.

How do you feel about the Democrats’ open door policy for immigration?

a) I think it is wonderful
b) I think it is terrible
c) I think all Democrats should feel ashamed
d) The policy should be squelched immediately

     Of course, Democrats have never had an “open door policy for immigration”. But the question indicates that they have had such a policy and, unfortunately, many people do not do any research on their own — so they believe it. Embedding lies within a question is a time-honored (though not honorable in any other way) method for politicians to mislead. There should be an “e” response:

e) I think the creator of this question should be seated at a blackboard and be required to write “I will not lie” 500 times.

     I am sure that there are questions with embedded lies for other political party situations — but I have seen the above sent in an email. As mentioned in a recent newsletter, it is always dangerous to just believe what you read or have been told. Research, get multiple viewpoints and data sources. What you hear is NOT necessarily what exists. Polls can indirectly lead people to accept lies as truth, and a bad poll question can lead many a recipient astray.

Watch out.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Impeachment vs Conviction: People often seem to be confused as to what impeachment means. They use it as if it means conviction. It doesn't.

     Impeach this person, impeach that person, impeach them all. I listen and I am sympathetic about the general feelings that someone, or some group of people, have done something wrong. But, I still cringe because they don’t mean what they are saying and are apparently unaware of the fact.

What does it mean to impeach (or indict)?

      To impeach a government employee is to ACCUSE them. For a non-government person, the process is to indict them. In each case, impeaching/indicting the person means that the body (House or District Attorney) feels that they have accumulated sufficient evidence of misdeeds that it should go to the next step — trial.

     Impeachment is also a bit different from indictment as to what the misdeed may be. For a government official, they are supposed to have done something illegal/immoral that will impair their ability to do a good job in their governmental office. It is “more stringent” in that it doesn’t have to break a specific law but “less stringent” because it has to matter. If they were supposed to wipe their feet before entering the building but didn’t — even if shown to be true it doesn’t matter because it doesn’t affect their ability to do their job (it may drive the janitor nuts).

     During an indictment, the District Attorney amasses evidence that they believe is adequate to prove the person did something illegal. If you drove through a red light but there was no other traffic around then you can STILL be prosecuted because you broke the law. (Admittedly, a jury MAY find you not guilty because they feel the penalty is excessive for the situation.)

     In either case, all that has happened is that an accusation has been made and the person, or group, doing the accusing believes they have enough evidence to prove the accusation. We could go through and impeach every member of Congress and, if they did not go to trial, all could continue their daily routine without any hindrance. Just a check mark on their resumé.

The next steps.

     Once this formal accusation is made, it is supposed to go to the next step — trial. For an impeachment, the trial is conducted by the Senate. For an indictment, the trial is held before a “jury of their peers”.

     For an impeachment, 2/3 of the Senate must vote for conviction for the governmental official to be removed from office. This was set deliberately high to try to avoid purely personal removals. It has seemed to work for that.

     George Washington hated, and warned against, the establishment of political parties — feeling that it might become a matter of “party before country”. And it seems to have gone that direction. So, now the 2/3 of the Senate needed to convict is more of a political party protection. The political party can be of greater importance than whether or not the official is guilty.

     The trial of the Impeachment of BIll Clinton lasted five weeks. The voting was largely on party lines but ten of the 55 “not guilty” votes came from Republicans. This probably occurred because the articles of Impeachment did not meet the “must impair the ability to do their job” — perjury and adultery did not meet that criteria. The international community had a good laughing spell about the impeachment as they couldn’t see any reason a governmental group would impeach their leader for such offences.

      The First Impeachment of Donald Trump was considered by the Senate for only two weeks. Voting was on a strict party line — with Republicans voting “not guilty” — though Mitt Romney did vote “guilty” on the abuse of power charge. Almost none of the evidence was publicly presented.

      The trial for the Second impeachment of Donald Trump was only examined for five days, and most evidence was not even reviewed because it was recognized that a decision had been made prior to hearing the evidence. Still, of the 53 votes for “guilty”, seven came from the Republican party. It should be noted that, of the seven votes, six of those Senators were NOT going to be facing an election and, thus, did not have to be concerned about Party repercussions.

     In a jury trial, all must agree on a guilty verdict. This reflects the idea of “innocent until proven guilty”. If one person feels they are not guilty then they are declared not guilty. There are situations where the trial hits a point where it is a mistrial and is done over but once a jury has reached a verdict, the same accusations cannot be brought to a jury again.

Summary

Impeachment == accusation. Conviction is needed before there are any consequences.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Travel Then and Now: We don't think much about it ... but travel has changed a lot over the decades, centuries, and millenia.

     Once upon a time, about the only way people could travel was by putting one foot in front of the other. Oh, occasionally, they might fall into a river and grab hold of a log and hope to get off before the river led to some rocks or a waterfall. That may have been their encouragement to learn to swim. Oh, swimming, you say. How ordinary! But, even today, only about 44% of the human population know how to swim unassisted. (Most can float if they don’t panic.) Dreams of personal flying (without assistance) was a long held dream — but I think most have now decided to allow mechanical assistance.

Technical innovations

     Humans are curious and good observers. A rolling log eventually got fashioned into a wheel, though there probably never was a stone wheel with a stick in the middle as you get from the comic “B.C.” or with a wooden axle as in the “Flintstones”. The log that they clung to in the river became hollowed out for more room, speed, and stability. People learned to use the wind with sails on boats, then for energy in windmills. Steam from a boiling vessel of water could push like the wind. So the power of wind was emulated with artificial “wind” in the form of steam. Eventually, people had many choices for movement — walk, swim, wheelchairs, hot air balloons, row boats, sailing boats, power boats, trains, automobiles, spaceships. Quite a journey through history.

Organizing for travel

     Many methods of travel have been used — new ones developed and ways, still only dreams, that have yet to be developed. But being able to move is only a small part of travel. Daily travel has been, and still is, the most frequent reason for travel. Go out to the fields to work. Go to the savannah to hunt. Go out to sea to fish. Go to the local factory, or office, to work. General purpose containers such as pockets, purses, billfolds, backpacks, and tucker bags were created for carrying the needs for the hunt or the office.

     Going farther, and for longer periods, was often a matter of income. People with little income would either just put their bag on their shoulder and move along — or, if it was a family, belongings would be loaded onto a mule or perhaps a cart. Carts were (and still are) pulled by dogs, horses, and humans — depending on resources.

     Ah, but the higher income folks. If you’ve ever watched “Joe vs. the Volcano” (one of my favorites with Tom Hanks), you’ll see him go into a luggage store and come out with four huge steamer trunks — each big enough to serve as a room for a small child (I’m exaggerating a tiny bit). Upper class, royalty, the local “big wigs” relied on others to make themselves comfortable and move whatever they might think they “might” need on a voyage or at the other end of the travel. The various travels of Isabella L. Bird throughout the Americas and the Pacific are fascinating. She “roughed it” but she also had a lot of extra human labor assisting her.

     Even today, you can occasionally spot a family with the very latest-fashion clothes with a MOUND of luggage queueing up at an airline counter to check their dozen suitcases and valises. I have yet to see them with the steamer trunks of yore but I will bet they still occur.

Borders

     Ah, borders! Those artificial lines on the maps that indicate “ours” and “theirs”. It’s a concept that less complex societies don’t understand (because it doesn’t really make a lot of sense). It hasn’t been that long — perhaps only a couple hundred years (not sure exactly) — that people could just move around unimpeded. No passports, no rites of visas and papers of entry. Perhaps much of this fluidity arose from the fact that almost the only ones who traveled voluntarily were the rich. The poor more often were fleeing war, disease, floods, or some other reason why they just couldn’t stay at the place they were leaving. The poor usually didn’t do it willingly.

     An exception was the pilgrim journeys. I am using the word “pilgrims” on the more generic level — people traveling to a sacred place for religious reasons — and NOT the more specific folk who arrived at Plymouth Rock in the Americas. No matter how they traveled — they did hope to return (healthily, if possible) back to their origination point. As part of their religious sense of duty, pilgrims often had very few possessions with them (possibly even gave their possessions away) and felt it made them more worthy if they suffered more.

Security

     I have absolutely no idea — nor do I think there is a way for anyone to know — whether airline security makes us safer. I have a reasonable idea as to how it evolved. Humans (especially in the US) have a desire to “feel safe” in a world that doesn’t really care if we are safe. I can think of all kinds of ways to get around security measures (and have NO desire to try them) and I am sure that people who seriously want to get around them can figure out ways. We see these things in movies. Movies are not meant to be instruction manuals (usually) but they give sufficient hints for others to follow in the scriptwriters’ footprints if they so desired.

     I do know that airline security makes air travel much less enjoyable for me. In our busy busy type-A society, however, we often have to do things the fastest way possible — and that is usually by air.

     Once upon a time, when we didn’t have the large travel security infrastructure built up (it hasn’t been that many years), I booked a flight to Hawaii. But — silly me — I got the flight number and departure time reversed in my mind. I don’t really remember the precise numbers but the flight was something like 0205 and the departure time was 01:10. But I THOUGHT the departure time was 2:05pm. I got to the airport believing that I was still an hour early. The ticket agent laughed and told me to run for it. I did and I made it — because all I had to do was to arrive at the gate and show my ticket to the gate agent. This scenario may seem like a total fantasy to all of you who are under 50 years of age. But it was real and it was normal (except for the misreading of the flight information).

     I am unwilling to pay for the comfort, and privilege, of not being treated like a sardine in a can. But, it is easy to understand the profit-motive for the airlines in configuring the planes in this way. The security requirements are just an additional overhead that one must SILENTLY (you dare not say a word about it while in the airport) anticipate and permit.

Summary

     Each of us will make many journeys in our lives. Most have daily journeys. These may be to work or the grocery store or to our yoga class. We also have more serious journeys that may take days to complete and may be for stays of long duration. There are different ways to travel and different ways to take along that which we feel we might need. Some ways are faster and some are slower but we choose between trade-offs each time we travel.

I can imagine, however, a world of much easier travel — it wouldn’t be that hard.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

TAXES: Progressive versus Regressive versus Flat; among other matters

     “The only things certain are death and taxes”. Just what are taxes and why are they present everywhere? As I wrote about in 2014, money is an abstraction of resources and energy. At the very foundation, the basis is about the things that you directly interact with — eat, drink, feel comfort, enjoy, and so forth. The larger the community, the more specialization that occurs and the more abstract money becomes.

     So, what does all of this have to do with taxes? Taxes are allocations of resources/money for communal use. The rest of the resources/money is for personal use. ALL of it comes from the same pool of resources/money.

What is the Government Sector and How do Taxes Relate to it?

     Taxes are collected by, or for, sections of the community that are collectively called “government”. We often think of government as those people “in charge” — whether they were put there by democratic vote or as an act of a group of oligarchs or as part of a drafted group of people or a group that overwhelmed and took over from the previous government. But government is divided up more for purpose than of particular titles or functions. Government is composed of decision makers but it is also composed of the manifold people who carry out those decisions and make the system work (sometimes called the “bureaucracy”). A data entry person in a municipal water works is part of government. If it is a separate, for-profit, business then it is not government. The delineation is that the government portion is paid for by the community as a whole and gives service to the community as a whole.

Benefits for Citizens from Taxes

     This is often an area of irritation for taxpayers. “Why should I have to pay school taxes when I don’t have a child in school?” “Why should I pay taxes to the federal government when they are spending money on this, or that, “frivolous” item?” “I don’t have a car, why do I have to pay for taxes that take care of the roads?” “I don’t go out of my house, why should I pay for National Parks?” “I am proud of being illiterate and ignorant, why should I pay for libraries or schools?”

     The answer to such questions is a matter of direct and indirect use. You may not drive on the roads but every person who delivers something to you DOES use them. You may not go to the National Parks but you DO benefit from protections of the environment with better breathing and a general ecosystem. You may not have a child in school but I am certain that you make use of services from people (likely including yourself) who DID move through the educational system. Indirect benefits of taxes are easily forgotten when one is trying to balance the budget for the month. Every rich person is totally dependent on hundreds or thousands of other people who are making use of services that are taxpayer-funded — and so are the rich people.

     When a person is choosing (if they have that opportunity) where to live, cost-of-living is an important factor. This includes taxes. You will probably save money in moving to a low tax area. But lower taxes are also likely to lead to poorer infrastructure and services. Poorer roads, poorer school systems, poorer fire and police departments, and so forth. Although poorer does mean less well-funded, many of these departments may still do very well because of the dedication of the people who work there — funding is not everything — but funding does matter.

How are Taxes Allocated?

     There are many ways that taxes may be levied. In the United States, ONLY Congress can create taxes. Neither the Executive nor the Judiciary branches can create taxes although the Judiciary can determine whether the Constitution allows a particular type of tax to be levied upon the citizenry. Prior to the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, all taxes levied by the federal government had to be allocated based upon a state’s population. This made any type of income tax upon an individual very complicated as it would mean a double index of tax responsibility — first allocating based upon the state population, then some individual allocation based on another formula. After the Sixteenth Amendment, the federal government was freed from the need to tax only upon basis of a state’s population — though the ability to tax continued to reside with Congress.

     In the US, income taxes are based on income divisions, with higher income brackets having to pay a higher percentage of income in taxes. Alas, this is made very complex with loopholes, deductions, special credits and other methods of reducing or eliminating taxes. Since tax structures, and laws, are primarily created by the wealthy for the wealthy most of those loopholes and such primarily benefit the wealthy.

     There are many other types of taxes. Tariffs, which can be created and managed ONLY by Congress are a type of sales tax paid by the consumer directly or indirectly via the price charged by the manufacturer/distributor. Sales taxes are based on the value of an article purchased. Property taxes are according to the current value of a piece of property. Payroll taxes are charged against specific types of benefits associated with employees. Capital gains taxes, broken into short-term and long-term investment, are levied against any profits (or losses) associated with buying and selling stocks or other intangible value. The last major category is associated with “wealth transfer” — moving items of value from one person to another such as a parent transferring wealth to a child upon their death.

The Uses of Taxes

     A tax is money accumulated from the community as a whole which benefits the community as a whole. It should be that, the more taxes that are given to the government, the more the government does for the taxed citizenry. It is often true — but not always because it is always possible that the money will go to only certain segments of the population. In a representative democracy, it is up to us to make sure that our candidates really represent our wishes — that they truly represent us.

Types of Taxes

     Tax structures can be progressive, regressive, or flat. They can also be uneven based upon special exceptions so that, even if a tax starts off as a certain category, for certain companies or individuals it can effectively be something different.

     A progressive tax has the underlying motivation of having those who are more able to pay taxes — do such. As mentioned before in previous newsletters, there is no direct relationship between income and the earning of income. Much depends on the tax laws and other work laws. We may SAY that a great teacher is the most important job in society — but that is NOT reflected in wages, requirements, or expressed appreciation. On the other hand, a CEO may be a great figurehead of a company and may (or may not) be involved in corporate leadership, product direction, and other things that lend support to the earnings, and value, of a company — but they do not produce that value themselves.

     A progressive tax tries to encourage a desire to do one’s “best” within a capitalist society while spreading the recompense among all the workers who generate the corporate value and wealth. The head of a company making $400 million dollars might be taxed $200 million (leaving “only” $200 million) and a worker producing value make $40,000 dollars and be taxed $200. This is determined by a combination of tax laws, wage laws, and unions (which are designed to represent the people creating the value).

     A regressive tax works in the opposite direction. That $400 million dollar position might pay an effective tax (because of loopholes, deductions, and credits) of only $500 while the $40,000 dollar/year worker pays $10,000. Normally, such regressive taxes are not done via income taxes (much too obvious) but via loopholes, credits, and special deviations from common tax law.

     Another method of imposing regressive taxes is by taxing things that poorer people use more of, as a percentage of expenditures, than richer people. For example, tariffs are often a regressive tax because a $100 tariff on a television set is so much larger of an amount for a poorer person than it would be for a richer person.

     Flat taxes always come up in conversations about tax system improvements. It has the huge advantage of being simple. But it only works without loopholes or other special aspects of the law. The rich pay more because they have more — they don’t like the removal of the loopholes. However, a person earning just enough to live on will be hurt considerably by a fixed tax whereas a rich person getting excessive income may not even notice it.

Tax Fairness

     Different formulas can work and they can approach fairness but loopholes, credits, and special situations can, and will, sink any reform. When we are paying taxes and are not receiving the services and value that we expect, it is time to find new representatives.

     We pay taxes as a whole to receive benefits as a whole. When we pay higher taxes, we deserve higher benefits. But if we prefer lower taxes, we should expect lower (perhaps much lower) benefits.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

To Be Human: Or perhaps to be sapient. The first step of being an overlord is to deny the equality of others.

     I, along with two of my children, have been watching One Piece for a while. Having just finished the seventh episode in the live action version, I am encountering a familiar story. We have the fishmen denying the rights of humans as the result of humans having denied the rights of fishmen. Oh, the cycles — everywhere the cycles. This has been a motif throughout history for people. Oh, not with fishmen. That is just our imaginations extending current behavior into worlds of fantasy.

     In each war, the “other” becomes less than human. They have to be. No one sane would attempt the murder of their own children and family. That is the path of self-destruction and annihilation. But the other tribe — once they are no longer our cousins and part of the family of humanity — they are fair game.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Ways to Divide

     There are lots of methods used for this division and people are somehow easily enticed into believing them. One of my uncles brought home a wife, of Japanese birth, from his travels in the Navy during World War II. Since it was after World War II, she was not subject to the concentration camps and theft of property that US citizens of Japanese ancestry were subject to — but she encountered resistance and active discrimination. I never saw her get angry and she always just smiled and continued along.

     But she was probably already used to dealing with discrimination — against women. It hasn’t been that long (less than 50 years) since most women in the US had to have a male’s (husband, father, guardian) signature on any paper to buy property or get a credit card. It is still bad. Many women, still believing in the “traditional” subservience of women to men, continue to vote for misogynistic legislators. (“The Handmaid’s Tale” is possible — with the active support of women.)

     Within the US, there was initially dehumanization of the First Nations. They were called “savages” although the conquerors of the Americas committed far more savage acts. But, the tribes of the First Nations were not human so it was okay. Then the importation of blacks, as slaves, via European and African traders. They were even less human since property has no rights and it is perfectly fine to sell off a chair (child) from the set around the table (parents). Even after the 15th Amendment was passed, people actively continued to treat blacks as a lesser variant of human and, often, still do.

     There was decimation of the Ainu population on the Japanese islands as they were overcome. “Fifth line” (named for the line number indicating nationality on USSR passports) Jewish people were murdered by Stalin and the Jewish population was even more horribly reduced by Hitler in the Holocaust. The citizens of Gaza have been severely culled in recent clashes. And there were the mass Armenian murders. And tribal conflicts in Africa. And so on and so on. Humans seem to have an amazing capacity to dehumanize others.

     If I have left out your specific discriminated-against division, I apologize. There are just SO many.

     Gender, skin color, religion, ethnicity, which side of the railroad tracks, political beliefs. Humans seem to be able to divide ourselves in all kinds of ways. I wonder whether we will be able to behave better if we encounter (or recognize) sapients from other worlds or galaxies?

The United States; a Nation of Immigrants

     In the United States, we are all immigrants or descendents of immigrants. Actually, in the Americas, it seems that none of us originated in the Americas. The First Nations are believed to have crossed to the Americas via the Bering Strait and via boats from Polynesia and Africa.

     But, even though we are all descended from immigrants, we currently seem to be embroiled in controversy about how long ago, and from what countries, our ancestors have immigrated. Who is valid, and an appropriate human, and who is not.

     Consider the current President of the United States. Two of his wives are immigrants. His mother was an immigrant, His paternal grandparents were immigrants. Certain changes in laws, under consideration, would remove the citizenship of several of his relatives. At best, the following of correct immigration procedures for some of his relatives is unclear. At worst, they were situations that did not follow proper procedure at all.

     Somehow, in spite of the history of the United States and the Americas, it seems that how and when we arrived is now more important than the many contributions immigrants have always made and continue to make. It is just one more rationale for division.

Transient division and the category of “whiteness”.

     Although the concept of race is an imaginary set of categories that was created to justify colonialism and slavery, the definitions are variable depending on the politics and power structure of the times. The category of “white” is the name given to those who are currently included within the power group. In the 1960s, there was a great uproar over the candidacy of John F. Kennedy because of his religion (Roman Catholic). Those who hated him said the Pope would take over the United States. Roman Catholics were not “white”, then they were. People from Ireland were not white — then they were. Same with Italians.

     It hasn’t always been explicit. But there are often signs (literally) that show “IRISH need not apply”, “NO CHINAMEN”, or (mostly in other countries) “NO Palestinians”. Of course, we were not happy with those of British ancestry (many of the “Patriots” were also of British ancestry) during the Revolutionary Way but, with such close ties still, it was more of a “civil” war than an “us versus them” war. Our current occupant in the Oval Office (called, by colleagues, “the biggest slumlord of New York”) was fined, along with his father, multiple times for the practice of “redlining” in the 1980s. Redlining draws borders to segregate according to race, or some other characteristic. This practice officially ended in the 1990s and 2000s but I suspect it still exists.

     In each case, justification continued by making the other group not-human — particularly when a powerful person says they come from “shithole countries”.

The family of humans

     There are a lot of feelings about the origin of humanity. They started from a couple called Adam and Eve. They evolved from a sequence of beings represented by “Lucy” discovered in Africa. They started from an unknown ancient ancestor in China. In Norse myth, Ask and Embla were made by the gods from a couple of trees.

     I am not going to try to say what is “right”. It really doesn’t matter. The one thing that all origin stories have in common is a beginning from a long-ago couple of beings. In a way, it is a “chicken or egg” type of story — as there may have been OTHER couples in addition to the couple that origin stories say were the beginning. It doesn’t matter. There was a beginning. And it continued.

     A need for expansion of area, plus an inherent curiosity, moved groups of people around the globe as human population grew. As they settled into each area, small differences popped up as they adapted to their new area. But they all came from the same beginning and they remain family. Family doesn’t always get along but we try to make it work.

     Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all remember that “we are family” is not just a song made famous by Sister Sledge?

Please share, or restack, if you find this discussion valuable. Thanks!