I'm reading The Official Fahrenheit 9/11 reader - yes, it's a little dated (only 2 years!) but I don't think books should be read and movies watched when they're basking in their hype; it takes away the attention from the content and the hype becomes a thing with a life of it's own - also, the spin doctors are out when hype is in the air, so you're never able to put the book or the movie in any sort of perspective. Anyway, bottom line - I'm reading it now and I'm going to recommend this to EVERYONE I know (of course, there's a real possibility I'm the last one to get my hands on it).
What doesn't add up for me though is HOW Bush could've won a second term despite this. I thought the American electorate was a lot more intelligent. This book contains pages and pages of documented truth about the Iraq war, the lies and the manipulation that made it possible. With lots of accolades for Michael Moore with letters by the dozen from born-again Democrats, first-time voters, vindicated Democrats saluting and thanking Michael Moore for telling them the truth - it's just amazing despite ALL of this, Bush got back in the driver's seat for a second term. I'm not sure whether it was Jay Leno or Moore himself who called Bush "the longest serving President to never have won an election" - that's on the dot. A couple of pages are devoted to how Bush stole the election from Al Gore - by getting his (Bush's) first cousin John Ellis who ran the FOX News Channel's election desk, to call the election in his favour in Florida AFTER all the networks and AP had declared Al Gore the winner. Once FOX called in Bush's favour, everyone followed suit. The book describes how the President had to cancel his traditional walk to the White House for the swearing in as 1000s of Americans poured into the streets of Washington DC to pelt his limo with eggs as it sped to what has now become symbolic of this presidency - a backdoor entry.
Also, the thing that doesn't add up is why Osama was let off when he could've been caught.
This book depicts in great detail the extremely up close and personal relationship that the Bushies shared with the bin Ladens, how when all flights were grounded post 9/11, "at least 6 private jets and nearly 2 dozen commercial planes" flew the Saudis and bin Ladens out of America - apparently, (this is chilling!) the bin Ladens and the Bushes and their friends have common investment interests in "the Carlyle Group, a multinational conglomerate that invests in heavily government-regulated industries like telecommunications, health care, and particularly defense." Osama's half-brother and a crowd of Americans were in the same room meeting about their investment interests at the Ritz-Carlton in Washington DC as they watched the planes go into the Towers - but the book also gives the impression (without stating so explicitly) that Osama had no sanction from his family to do this - but of course we forget THE most important pieces of the puzzle - greenbacks and oil.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary and it won in The Best Picture category, that too at Cannes. It must be Wow! I have to get my hands on this movie - I know, I'm only 2 years behind!
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Jack-in-office (or it's not just the Peter Principle, stupid)
Lao Tzu, a 6th century Chinese philosopher, said "To lead the people, walk behind them." When you walk behind your people, you pick up things that you can never pick up if you're constantly sitting in a glass cabin into which you expect people to remove their footwear before they enter. It does something to otherwise ordinary mortals when they get into their cabins and sit on their thrones - wise exceptions continue to stay mortals, but most of them morph into insensitive jacks-in-office; these jacks-in-office live in an incredibly happy atmosphere and for the life of them, can never understand why others can't be as happy as they are!
Hello! I'm jack-in-office; I make all important decisions that I don't have to communicate - read that again - THAT I DON'T HAVE TO COMMUNICATE - those 6 words are the root cause of everyone's misery; they allow me to be completely insensitive to you because I don't even know you exist; I'm not the messenger, and people only shoot messengers. I will make a decision - Yes, No, Maybe - but you communicate it - and you get shot in the process, thank you very much.
But you ask, "Since I'm anyway getting shot, will I be allowed to make my own decisions and then get shot for my decisions instead of getting shot for yours?"
"No way! I'm jack-in-office, stupid. You're just jack's jack."
And how did I make these decisions? Not by talking to the people who will be affected by them or at least listening to assistant jack, but by talking to other jacks like me who also reside in similar glass houses and flick away their assistant jacks and other ordinary mortals from their cabins like flies. Assistant jack goes out to communicate jack-in-office's decisions to the ordinary mortals who revolt and flog assistant jack because they don't have access to jack-in-office to flog him. Assistant jack can't mollify his people, so he resorts to the next best thing - like third-degree torture.
Meanwhile, good ole' jack-in-office is protected from the mayhem, seated as he is in his sterile glass cabin, so he's happy and for the life of him, can never understand why others can't be as happy as he is!(Oh, sorry, am I repeating myself?)
Instead picture this: I'm jack-in-office; I want a decision I made implemented, so I go out and announce my decision and face the consequences, good or bad; I communicate and I (not you) am accountable to my subordinates; I listen to the concerns, I think about them, and a few egg and tomato omelettes later, I become sensitive; not because I've grown a brain at last but because I know now what it is to have my goose cooked, so it forces me to think about other people for a change, especially if I have to go out and meet them and talk to them and be accountable for my actions.
None of the above is practical in large organizations and that is why decision making should be decentralized at every level, organizations, city administrations, state, and even central administration. Instead, both these conditions don't exist. Decision making remains very centralized in most large organizations and definitely even in so called democracies despite lofty mouthings to the contrary and people who make the decsions are least accountable, least accessible, least connected, least knowledgeable, and the very least sensitive.
Blasphemy! If decision making were to be decentralized, what about me?!? I would be unnecessary and I'm not skilled to do what I'm asking you to do! So, what about me? Hush, hush now....
Hello! I'm jack-in-office; I make all important decisions that I don't have to communicate - read that again - THAT I DON'T HAVE TO COMMUNICATE - those 6 words are the root cause of everyone's misery; they allow me to be completely insensitive to you because I don't even know you exist; I'm not the messenger, and people only shoot messengers. I will make a decision - Yes, No, Maybe - but you communicate it - and you get shot in the process, thank you very much.
But you ask, "Since I'm anyway getting shot, will I be allowed to make my own decisions and then get shot for my decisions instead of getting shot for yours?"
"No way! I'm jack-in-office, stupid. You're just jack's jack."
And how did I make these decisions? Not by talking to the people who will be affected by them or at least listening to assistant jack, but by talking to other jacks like me who also reside in similar glass houses and flick away their assistant jacks and other ordinary mortals from their cabins like flies. Assistant jack goes out to communicate jack-in-office's decisions to the ordinary mortals who revolt and flog assistant jack because they don't have access to jack-in-office to flog him. Assistant jack can't mollify his people, so he resorts to the next best thing - like third-degree torture.
Meanwhile, good ole' jack-in-office is protected from the mayhem, seated as he is in his sterile glass cabin, so he's happy and for the life of him, can never understand why others can't be as happy as he is!(Oh, sorry, am I repeating myself?)
Instead picture this: I'm jack-in-office; I want a decision I made implemented, so I go out and announce my decision and face the consequences, good or bad; I communicate and I (not you) am accountable to my subordinates; I listen to the concerns, I think about them, and a few egg and tomato omelettes later, I become sensitive; not because I've grown a brain at last but because I know now what it is to have my goose cooked, so it forces me to think about other people for a change, especially if I have to go out and meet them and talk to them and be accountable for my actions.
None of the above is practical in large organizations and that is why decision making should be decentralized at every level, organizations, city administrations, state, and even central administration. Instead, both these conditions don't exist. Decision making remains very centralized in most large organizations and definitely even in so called democracies despite lofty mouthings to the contrary and people who make the decsions are least accountable, least accessible, least connected, least knowledgeable, and the very least sensitive.
Blasphemy! If decision making were to be decentralized, what about me?!? I would be unnecessary and I'm not skilled to do what I'm asking you to do! So, what about me? Hush, hush now....
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Peter Principle (with dollops of Dilbert)
"I get mail; therefore I am." - Dilbert
Laurence J Peter authored Peter Principle (published 1968) in which he contends that "In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence." At the time it was published, the Peter Principle might've seemed novel but now we have Scott Adams' Dilbert who encounters the Peter Principle every day at work.
Increasingly, the world is being run - workplaces, factories, institutions, and entire nations - on the Peter Principle. Simply put, with a few exceptions, most people "running the show" are collectively mad, insensitive, and clueless about the implications of their madness on their immediate subordinates.
The Peter Principle's hypothesis (now a fact) is pretty simple: Promotions are made like this: I excel at my desk job, so I'm made manager of my department. There is absolutely no logic or coherence to this decision. I've only proved my prowess at the desk job and nothing else; I know peanuts about people, let alone managing them. But this unexpected windfall makes me seriously believe in my nonexistent capabilities and I go ballistic. I wreck the system with well-thoughtout, carefully debated mismanagement. To achieve this feat, I spend hours in my cabin summoning other incompetents (who have been similarly promoted) to my desk to tell me what I wish to hear based on which I make decisions that are either completely irrelevant or unnecessary (or both) to my immediate subordinates and are guranteed to obliterate any ounce of happiness they might have previously possessed as workers. They can't shake me up, they can't take me out, so they quit.
But I'm a manager, so I can't be demoted, therefore I'll get promoted again - in a bid to disable my capacity to do direct damage to the grassroots. But in my new role, I'm an unstoppable megalomaniac. My motto is "It's either my way or the highway." Here, I'm not doing direct damage to the grassroots, but I'm causing enough grief to my fellow incompetents in middle management for them to do serious damage to their immediate subordinates, the grassroots, which they do with impish glee.
But now, I'm unshakeable. People under me just have to pray for divine intervention. Morale has plunged, everyone is cynical about everything, workers are desperate, my contribution is there for everyone to see, but I sit royally ensconced in my cabin surrounded by my yes-men telling me things never looked better though there is not an iota of data to prove this hypothesis; customers are baying for my blood, workers are quitting like rats deserting a sinking ship, those who stay are simply biding time, but I sit firmly with my rose-tinted blinkers on because now I'm so far promoted, the world I inhabit has no connection to reality.
But the unhappy people who're actually slaving for me to earn my monthly bomb keep slaving miserably at their unproductive best. Their nonperformance makes me belligerent towards them but it never troubles my nonexistent conscience that I'm the cause of their misery because my incompetence is earning me a paycheck that is 10 times fatter than theirs. Instead of keeping these people happy and trying to address the cause of their unhappiness, I do everything I can to alienate my workforce even further. I can't be demoted for my incompetence, so I demote them if they don't give me what I demand - regardless of how unreasonable my demands are. That's secondary. I'm the BOSS - that's primary.
At an organizational level, the story might end with either the organization running itself to the ground or with hiring and firing the right people. With larger playgrounds, like cities, states, or nations, the story never ends. It's easier for me to perpetuate the damage across larger areas by simply getting lost in the system and installing other incompetents like me to both cover my own back and to avoid having to deal with the mess that that has now snowballed into unmanageable proportions. I should've been at my desk job - where I was doing good work and out of everyone's way. Or I should've been shot after my first promotion. If I'd been shot at the right time, I would've become a martyr (eg. Mahatma Gandhi). Now, I'm just a royal pain in the wrong place (eg. Sonia Gandhi).
That's how Popes are made. That's how High Priests are made. That's how Mullahs are made. That's how Presidents and Prime Ministers are made. That's how the WORLD runs. And you, you miserable nincompoop, you crib about your workplace! HA!
Go read Dilbert and be happy. You're not alone.
Laurence J Peter authored Peter Principle (published 1968) in which he contends that "In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence." At the time it was published, the Peter Principle might've seemed novel but now we have Scott Adams' Dilbert who encounters the Peter Principle every day at work.
Increasingly, the world is being run - workplaces, factories, institutions, and entire nations - on the Peter Principle. Simply put, with a few exceptions, most people "running the show" are collectively mad, insensitive, and clueless about the implications of their madness on their immediate subordinates.
The Peter Principle's hypothesis (now a fact) is pretty simple: Promotions are made like this: I excel at my desk job, so I'm made manager of my department. There is absolutely no logic or coherence to this decision. I've only proved my prowess at the desk job and nothing else; I know peanuts about people, let alone managing them. But this unexpected windfall makes me seriously believe in my nonexistent capabilities and I go ballistic. I wreck the system with well-thoughtout, carefully debated mismanagement. To achieve this feat, I spend hours in my cabin summoning other incompetents (who have been similarly promoted) to my desk to tell me what I wish to hear based on which I make decisions that are either completely irrelevant or unnecessary (or both) to my immediate subordinates and are guranteed to obliterate any ounce of happiness they might have previously possessed as workers. They can't shake me up, they can't take me out, so they quit.
But I'm a manager, so I can't be demoted, therefore I'll get promoted again - in a bid to disable my capacity to do direct damage to the grassroots. But in my new role, I'm an unstoppable megalomaniac. My motto is "It's either my way or the highway." Here, I'm not doing direct damage to the grassroots, but I'm causing enough grief to my fellow incompetents in middle management for them to do serious damage to their immediate subordinates, the grassroots, which they do with impish glee.
But now, I'm unshakeable. People under me just have to pray for divine intervention. Morale has plunged, everyone is cynical about everything, workers are desperate, my contribution is there for everyone to see, but I sit royally ensconced in my cabin surrounded by my yes-men telling me things never looked better though there is not an iota of data to prove this hypothesis; customers are baying for my blood, workers are quitting like rats deserting a sinking ship, those who stay are simply biding time, but I sit firmly with my rose-tinted blinkers on because now I'm so far promoted, the world I inhabit has no connection to reality.
But the unhappy people who're actually slaving for me to earn my monthly bomb keep slaving miserably at their unproductive best. Their nonperformance makes me belligerent towards them but it never troubles my nonexistent conscience that I'm the cause of their misery because my incompetence is earning me a paycheck that is 10 times fatter than theirs. Instead of keeping these people happy and trying to address the cause of their unhappiness, I do everything I can to alienate my workforce even further. I can't be demoted for my incompetence, so I demote them if they don't give me what I demand - regardless of how unreasonable my demands are. That's secondary. I'm the BOSS - that's primary.
At an organizational level, the story might end with either the organization running itself to the ground or with hiring and firing the right people. With larger playgrounds, like cities, states, or nations, the story never ends. It's easier for me to perpetuate the damage across larger areas by simply getting lost in the system and installing other incompetents like me to both cover my own back and to avoid having to deal with the mess that that has now snowballed into unmanageable proportions. I should've been at my desk job - where I was doing good work and out of everyone's way. Or I should've been shot after my first promotion. If I'd been shot at the right time, I would've become a martyr (eg. Mahatma Gandhi). Now, I'm just a royal pain in the wrong place (eg. Sonia Gandhi).
That's how Popes are made. That's how High Priests are made. That's how Mullahs are made. That's how Presidents and Prime Ministers are made. That's how the WORLD runs. And you, you miserable nincompoop, you crib about your workplace! HA!
Go read Dilbert and be happy. You're not alone.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Another mountain-molehill situation
Somebody with a lot of time on their hands decided that the Muslims of India should not sing Vande Mataram, the national song, so naturally the BJP (which has more time than anyone else) decided this is unpatriotic and now, we have a raging controversy on our hands, in our newspapers, and on TV.
The media, especially in India, has become increasingly inflammatory in its coverage of sensitive topics. There's no reason to run this story day and night and stick a mike in every Tom, Dick, and Harry's face and ask for his opinion on the issue - which is basically a non-issue. In these volatile times, the media forces everyone to form an opinion and to mouth it. This is completely unnecessary and to a large extent, very irresponsible. Gone are the days when TV anchors were mere moderators in any debate. Now, they get into the debates themselves and hardly bother to conceal which side they're on. This is a very unhealthy trend. Agreed as individuals, they are entitled to their opinions, but as professionals they are required to remain neutral moderators. Instead, most of our anchors get into arguments with their panelists, guests, or audience further inflaming passions.
To come back to Vande Mataram - since when did singing a song define your patriotism or lack of it? Do we need these pseudo patriots who don't think twice before hiking their salaries "cutting across party lines" (and religious lines) when people are literally dropping dead with no food and shelter in a country where the divide between the haves and have-nots is so gaping? Why should a man who doesn't know where his next meal is coming from, sing on an empty stomach saluting his motherland? Regardless of what religion he belongs to?
Finally, why should it matter to me whether you sing the national song or not? Whether you're patriotic or not? Who is a patriot? Sonia Gandhi? Because she sings Vande Mataram?
Thanks - I'll go with the Muslims.
The media, especially in India, has become increasingly inflammatory in its coverage of sensitive topics. There's no reason to run this story day and night and stick a mike in every Tom, Dick, and Harry's face and ask for his opinion on the issue - which is basically a non-issue. In these volatile times, the media forces everyone to form an opinion and to mouth it. This is completely unnecessary and to a large extent, very irresponsible. Gone are the days when TV anchors were mere moderators in any debate. Now, they get into the debates themselves and hardly bother to conceal which side they're on. This is a very unhealthy trend. Agreed as individuals, they are entitled to their opinions, but as professionals they are required to remain neutral moderators. Instead, most of our anchors get into arguments with their panelists, guests, or audience further inflaming passions.
To come back to Vande Mataram - since when did singing a song define your patriotism or lack of it? Do we need these pseudo patriots who don't think twice before hiking their salaries "cutting across party lines" (and religious lines) when people are literally dropping dead with no food and shelter in a country where the divide between the haves and have-nots is so gaping? Why should a man who doesn't know where his next meal is coming from, sing on an empty stomach saluting his motherland? Regardless of what religion he belongs to?
Finally, why should it matter to me whether you sing the national song or not? Whether you're patriotic or not? Who is a patriot? Sonia Gandhi? Because she sings Vande Mataram?
Thanks - I'll go with the Muslims.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)