Maggie's Farm

I am not delving into the psychology of empathy. I'm not trained in it, and I don't know enough to make a statement from that position.  I can, however, write about its effect on my own experiences, from my own therapy, and from a recent event which sparked a challenging debate.

That event was Meryl Streep's Golden Globes acceptance speech.  I watched about 5 minutes of it, then left.  Because I can, and I chose to.  While I agreed with a bit, there was far more there than I was interested in hearing.  To begin with, I don't watch award shows, I happened to switch it on at just that moment and thought I'd like to see her receive her award.  If I am going to watch an awards show, I want to be entertained, not lectured.  I turned it off.  I did read the text the next day when the brouhaha around it began.  Mainly because New York, the center of 'if you disagreed with her, you're insane and wrong and must have something wrong with you' began to show its ugliness.  In other words, "Hillary lost and WE STILL HAVE NO CLUE HOW AND WHY IT HAPPENED SO WE MUST LASH OUT!"  Meryl was offered a moment to lash out, and she did.  Following some kind of empathic tribal code, her supporters rushed to demonize anyone who didn't 'feel' the same way Meryl did.

I received a link this morning to an article which suggests readers should more or less 'be afraid' of a certain group of technology companies.  Over the course of time, many firms have acted in an amoral or immoral fashion.  These tech firms have all probably also behaved poorly at various points.  But the value they provide is significant.  Fearing them is not sensible.  There is good reason to not fear them.  History indicates they are likely to all be undone or greatly diminished at some point in time.  For most of the 1980s, the 'company' I was supposed to fear was the entire nation of Japan.  For most of the 2000s, it's been China.  Funny how Japan has been in a 20 year funk while China is just now dropping like a stone (apparently, Bitcoin prices are soaring over there - a sure sign of instability).

I consider articles like the above link to be a form of fake news, because it's an emotional appeal based on faulty logic. Articles of this nature appear every 10 years or so about various companies.  Aside from China and Japan, I've read articles like this about GM, GE, Exxon, IBM, Cisco, Oracle, Bank of America, Citibank, AT&T, Coca-Cola, ITT, and a host of other large firms who, in total, represented large and innovative firms at various points in time.  They were firms which happened to benefit from temporary blips in demand and consumer behavior.  Point is, almost all are still fairly large firms, but their dominance has diminished, our fear subsiding as our interests and spending patterns change.  

In every case, consumer behaviors shifted, innovation moved in different directions, or smaller more competitive firms caught up with these firms.  But in almost every case, the dominant positions they claimed were lost.  I see the same thing happening with Alphabet, Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft at some point.  In fact, Microsoft is no longer the dominant company it once was - it, too, was part of the group mentioned above back in the 90's as a potentially dangerous 'monopoly'.  I guess being downgraded from 'monopoly' status is just as frightening as being part of a group of large firms which all compete with each other?

The idea that there is something new and different happening with these tech firms is misguided.  Railroads dominated the economic scene for many decades in the 1800s, then oil companies, then car manufacturers.  Each one was demonized in similar fashion.  Tech offers greater opportunity than any of these firms did, as well as great potential for abuse.  But you take the good with the bad, and the good usually outweighs the bad in an overwhelming fashion.  I'll take my chances with these firms as opposed to any government oversight and regulation, thank you.  Their fear and dislike of each other will keep them on a far more even keel than any pinhead politician.

A nice benefit of Maggie's website management are notifications when posts are shared.  

Validation is always welcome.  It's great to see someone pick up on your writing and think "I am glad I was able to add to the discussion."  I believe this holds when a piece is shared on a site opposing what you've written.  I'm not interested in an echo chamber.

Twenty months after writing this post on data, I received notification of its inclusion on another site.  Upon reading, one might be inclined to believe I'm not a fan of data.  Not true, I just don't put my full faith in everything as it is presented, or simply because it's presented, to me.  

Since my post, 20 months have passed and nothing has changed.  In fact the 2016 election was an example of organizations simply accepting data, becoming reliant on it, while few questioned its value.  The data left me, and many others, inclined to believe Hillary would win.  At the same time, it left me angry about how it was presented in a "See?  We have more information and you don't know what's really going on" manner.  The day of the election, however, the long lines I saw (in New York City) left me with the impression the data may not be telling the whole story.  If Hillary voters in a safe city were turning out in droves, I came to the conclusion turnout would be high across the board, and high turnout usually coincides with a desire for change.  The data itself may not be 'wrong' but whoever was using it was doing so improperly.

The election, that is.  I spent most of the night of the election laughing.  I wasn't sure what the proper response was.  I didn't vote for either candidate, so it mattered little to me.  Both have massive flaws, and I'm not sure one is worse than the other.  We'll agree to disagree, OK?  Now let's go have a beer and talk about other things.  I am enjoying the gnashing of teeth among the Progressive illiterati.

Problem is...McSorley's is closed! You'd think, after all this time, of all the beer halls in NYC, McSorley's would get a pass, right?  Nope.  Could this be the end of McSorley's?  Probably not, we're told.  I certainly hope not.

I guess even the king of dive bars has to take a dive once in a while.  I wonder how Joseph Mitchell would respond?

While work has been a major political hassle for the last 6 months, one of the benefits of 10-plus years of employment at a firm is the ability to take longer vacations.  My recent 2 week sojourn was predicated on the desire to use frequent flier miles we'd amassed, along with a free ticket due to an airline screw-up during our vacation to Italy last year.  Toss in low-cost housing with AirBnB, a reason to travel because my niece was representing the US on the under 18 hockey team, and my siblings all wanting to travel (or living in Vienna), and the wife and I decided it was a good time to head across the pond.

Vienna was our base, as my sister and her family live there.  The hockey tournament was in Prague.  So, 5 days in Vienna, drive 3 hours and spend 5 days in Prague, then drive back and enjoy 2 final days in Vienna.  

Vienna offers the ability to take boat/train/bus to Bratislava and Budapest for the day.  It's proximity to Prague was obviously useful, and the road there allowed us to stop in Heldenberg to see the Spanish Riding School's summer stables, then stop in Telc for lunch (or Jihlava for lunch on the return). 

These stops were very nice.  Telc, in particular, was a great 3 hour stop.  Highly recommend it to anyone passing through.  Wonderful town square, beautifully restored.  Make sure you climb to the top of the (very claustrophobic and designed for short people) bell tower.  But Prague was our main goal.  Not just for the hockey (which didn't work out well for our side), but take in one of the most wonderful cities in Europe. 

A classic of Film Noir, The Third Man is probably one of the most famous to inextricably link its story and characters with the city in which it was filmed, Vienna.  On any given day, you can walk past filming locations.  My first day there, I inadvertently passed Harry Lime's apartment, but deliberately went to the infamous ferris wheel, or Riesenrad. 

Lime's apartment building is almost next door to the Imperial Palace, in a fairly noteworthy section of the city.  Yet you really wouldn't make the connection between reality and film if you weren't aware of its use, and I wasn't that first day.  In fact, I wasn't clued in until my brother-in-law pointed it out to me on my last day in Vienna.

I didn't go to Vienna to do a tour of the film's locations, but trying to visit them will certainly give you a good understanding of the city and its history.  It was filmed over some of the more interesting portions of town, and given the timing, the use of British and Soviet sectors helps keep that part of history alive and interesting.  A tour of film locations is as good a way to see the city as any other.

To that end, there are some points of The Third Man worth addressing for modern viewers who aren't familiar with history.  After all, Austria and its capital city, Vienna, were split by the Allies into zones of occupation and management much like Germany and Berlin.  This continued for many years, ending in 1955 when secret negotiations between Austrian diplomats and the Soviets steered Austria into a neutral global position.  (It may come as a surprise to some, but Vienna has tended to have a very cozy relationship with Socialism, and Communism in particular.  While Austria has been a successful post-war 'Western' nation and economy, its capital city's cozy relationship with leftist politics are evident in location names (Friedrich-Engels Platz), tenement/museums (Karl-Marx-Hof, built in 1930), and even some of their monuments.)  As a result, even though the war was long over, the military plays a primary role in the story.    

Most of the film takes place in the British zone, which is where Lime's apartment is located.  His address is 15 Stiftgasse, but the real location is the Palais Pallavicini, across from the Spanish Riding School in Michaelerplatz.

Since the film was shot in Vienna while it was still rebuilding after the war, in 1949, the devastation is still clear in many scenes.  Most notably the road to the cemetery (south of the city toward the airport) or the lot next to the Cafe Mozart.   The real Cafe Mozart wasn't used in the filming, as the location chosen was the Neuer Markt.  

While we were in the Czech Republic, we had a wonderful dessert concoction known as Tredlnik.  It's a doughnut-like pastry wrapped around a rotating spit, fired over charcoal, then dipped in a sugary glaze and covered with cinnamon.  The inside is coated with chocolate, and you can choose a variety of fillings.  Ice cream is popular, but I really liked the strawberries and whipped cream.  

It's one of the least healthy but most delightful snacks I've had.  If you've never seen or had it, I would best describe it as an ice cream cone, but it's softer, there's a hole in the bottom, and it's served warm (even hot) - so while ice cream works in it, you'd better eat it fast.

The lines at Prague's Tredlnik stands were always long, particularly after 11pm when the drinking crowd started showing up in force.  Lines often included young men on their bachelor party, forced to wear dresses, and often being held up by their buddies.  When I woke up early to visit the Charles Bridge (you really do have to wake up early if you want pictures of it without crowds), I was stunned to see the same women I'd seen the night before around midnight, firing up their Tredlnik fires and making the dough.  I wasn't sure if they were just finishing up from the night before and about to be replaced by the next shift, or if they were really hardcore workers.

I recently returned from 2 weeks in Austria and the Czech Republic.  We were taking a trip to Prague to see my niece compete in a Under 18 international hockey tournament.  Since my sister lives with her family in Vienna, we felt the best solution was fly to Vienna, stay a few days, rent a car, drive to Prague, take in some sights.  We left the boys at home to care for the dog, watch the house and earn some income before heading back to school, and jetted off to Vienna.

Upon arrival, we were told to take the CAT (City Airport Train) into Wien Mitte station, and grab a cab.  Not knowing the city, this was our solution, and it paid off.  Cabs are expensive, but our cab driver gave us great information about using public transport, and helped us figure out what parts of the city to see.  A wonderful fellow, he was a graduate of U of Cal Santa Barbara and spoke perfect English.  Gave us insight on how cabs operate, what to be careful of so we didn't get ripped off, etc.  It's amazing how much information can be shared in a 15 minute cab ride.  I didn't think a picture of the subway was enticing, so I'm opting for a view of the city from the high swing at the Prater (I wanted to ride the ferris wheel from The Third Man, but that took too long, so we hopped on the swing):

I'll begin with an apology.  This post may come across as a bit curmudgeonly, but I will try to keep it somewhat light.  After all, it's been several months (4, to be exact) since I posted anything.  It's not as if there hasn't been plenty going on, with the election, the Olympics, and a host of crazy events in the world occurring.  It's not even that I haven't wanted to write.  But everything we do carries a price, and we have to determine where are efforts are best applied.  

For me, the corporate world has become a bizarre scenario.  Recent management changes in my office have led to responsibility shifts, and being a white male over 50, I'm in an unusual position.  I have to continually prove my relevance.  That shouldn't be unusual, it's the kind of relevance I have to prove which is unusual.  We should all have to prove ourselves capable and competent in our jobs, regardless of age.  This seems to be less important today.  What I have to consistently prove is how well I 'fit' in the organization.  In other words, it's now what you do or say, but how you do or say it.  Results aren't gauged by how quickly or efficiently they are accomplished, but by how well they are 'socialized'.  To a large degree, it has required a considerable bit of effort to run in place.  I've found that my days are spent as much determining strategies to move forward as they are spent trying to get the job done.

People (since I live in NYC and have so many liberal or so-called 'moderate' leaning friends) wonder why I consider Obama divisive.  He is, without a doubt, among the most deliberately divisive presidents in our history.  Bush was divisive, but not deliberately so.  His mere existence caused Progressives to vomit (I considered him divisive because he caused me to leave the Republican Party based on his behavior, which I'm not sure was deliberate, but he certainly behaved like he had to do the things he did).

But the Obama speech at the Dallas memorial was a classic in division politics.  His supporters have cheered him as a 'caring' man, someone who is 'willing to do something' - even if that something is lie.  Lying seems to come easily to this man, and his supporters love it.  

The memorial was no place to make a political statement.  Yet he did.  He made outrageous claims about "our" lack of willingness to fund schools, fund health programs, and how it's easier to buy a Glock than get a computer or a book.  Yet school funding is at all time highs, with many of the worst districts among the most heavily funded on a per student basis, and health support is also at all time highs.  Meanwhile, I've noticed that Barnes & Noble and Amazon are still making some decent money, while schools hand out computers to their students for use during the school year.  How does he have the gall to lie so brazenly?  Because he can.  Nobody questions him, particularly at a memorial for slain officers.

Meanwhile, his speech was another call for gun control.  Which, in the aftermath of the Bastille Day massacre, should raise some eyebrows.  After all, are we likely to start asking for 'truck control' now?  France did a good job of controlling guns, so I suppose that is the logical next step, is it not? 

I tired of emotional appeals in politics long ago, but it seems this is all we get any more.  From the bombastic and aggressive emotional outbursts of Trump to the lies and deceit of the 'caring' Left wing triumvirate of Bernie, Hillary, and Barry.  We're a nation divided more over feelings and lacking the capacity or willingness to look at what we can, and have, accomplished.

Like how much less violent we really are.

We all knew it wasn't going to happen.  It's the how it didn't happen that is most unsurprising.  "Lack of malicious intent."

Nothing to see here, right?

We all know she's clean as a whistle.

 Our nation has been unique in that it rarely prosecutes politicians for crimes related to the execution of official duties.  There is a good reason for this, since that kind of prosecution can often be driven by political goals and outcomes (a hallmark of banana republics and third world nations).  However, in this case, there is a clear dereliction of duty and, in my mind, benign neglect (the best you can say about her behavior) is the same as malicious intent.  In fact, benign neglect in any corporate situation can and will get you fired.

But government is not a corporate environment.  Which is why I hold politicians and government in such low regard. 

The real problem I have to face here in NYC is the stupidity of her supporters who say "The FBI says she's not guilty."  No, they didn't.  They just didn't feel the case would derive an outcome worthy of taking it to court, but clearly pointed out that she engaged in plenty of illegal activity.  Just not maliciously.  I'll remember that next time I decide to not pay my taxes.

In absolutely no surprise to anyone, Obama's response to the tragedy in Orlando is to call for gun control.  No mention of radical Islam, no discussion of the fellow caught with bombs in LA, and how restrictions on bombs have stopped their use.  The Tsarnaev incident alone, which Obama also avoided tying to radical Islam, should be proof enough that bans don't stop tragedies of this nature since bomb-making is illegal.  But logic hasn't been his strong suit.

After all, when housing prices collapsed in 2008, he didn't call for a ban on hammers, nails, bulldozers and scaffolding.  Bans which, since they are tool specific just like gun restrictions, would have made house building much more difficult and helped prices rise.  A gun is a tool, too.  It didn't walk into the club on its own, it didn't pull its own trigger.  It required a sick and deluded person to perpetrate the crime.

The central tenet of Libertarianism is freedom.  It is the right to choose.  Not just choose 'stuff' while shopping, but everything.  Where to live, who you associate with, who you do business with, who you work for or who works for you, and what you want to do with your life.  While it is often contrasted with Socialism and Communism, this commentator points out there is a third thread which is often overlooked, but cuts across the philosophical spectrum - bureaucratic centralism.  It's my belief that Conservatives are essentially libertarians (small "l") who like having, or believing in, the direction that centralized government can provide.  Which is why Libertarians, more often than not, are lumped in with Republicans.  In my recent past, I've learned to distrust and, whenever possible, avoid anything government claims to provide, or that people believe it should provide.  If I could avoid, or it was practical to avoid, all things the government provides, I would.  Unfortunately I don't have that freedom, since it's been taken either by vote or by bureaucratic diktat.

I'm not a blue-collar worker, but I had blue-collar jobs in my younger days.  There is a meme floating around right now suggesting people who oppose the minimum wage increases (as I do) are amoral people who believe low income workers 'deserve' what they earn.  Many good blue-collar jobs pay pretty well and just require hard work and the desire to do it.  The minimum wage really applies to the lowest end of the blue-collar funnel, low-skilled and entry-level labor.  And I don't feel even low-skilled or entry-level workers 'deserve' anything, anymore than I 'deserve' something or a blue-collar worker 'deserves' something.  We work because we've come to an agreement on a wage and we're comfortable with between ourselves and our employer.  Comfortable with does not mean we think it's optimal, perfect, or what we want.  It means we feel we can do the job for that sum.

But Mike Rowe points out another key part of the jobs equation.  Jobs don't come to us.  We have to go to them.  If my best job option is going to be in San Francisco or Chicago, rather than here in NYC, then I should be prepared to go to it.  If I don't, I really have no complaints about whatever job I wind up with, because I took what's available within the limitations I set for myself.  The US has always been a mobile nation.  Mobile as in able to move both physically and economically.  People move up and down the wealth and income ladder, but they have also transport themselves to where the jobs are.  It's been that way for years.  After all, that's part of what Manifest Destiny was all about - following opportunity.  It's why Horace Greeley supposedly said "Go West, young man."  Today it may be better stated as "Go Weld, young man."

We were just there...so I was surprised to see this in my NY Historical Society feed today.  Grant's Tomb dedicated on April 27, 1897.  Our Urban Hike had some relatively good timing.

A good narrator, or orator, can make anything sound interesting.  Vin Scully, long time voice of the Dodgers, is a great one.  I'm not a fan of the Dodgers, and my exposure to Scully is limited to his coverage of nationally televised games, but his skill is evident.  So much so, he once deigned (a strong word, by most accounts he has a great sense of humor) read a grocery list on air.  The results were, not surprisingly, intriguing and entertaining.  Or, as my Dodger fan friend who sent this to me said, "enthralling."  As he begins his 67th and final year as the voice of the Dodgers, it seems a fitting tribute.  

No other announcer can boast Scully's experience, beginning in Brooklyn in 1950, following the Dodgers to Los Angeles, there are few team voices as unique and recognizable as Scully's.

Completed successfully.  Group of about 18, from as far away as Maine and Illinois.  We made it from the Dunkin Donuts on Delancey St. by the Williamsburg Bridge up to Riverside Church and Grant's Tomb (with many scenic detours) but still not quite sure who is buried there.

Tired, covered about 11.7 miles.   More later from others who took pictures.  I need to rest the barking dogs.

Mrs. Bulldog says I, as tour guide, started strong, had a weak middle, but we finished strong.   

Pic is our sign at our meet spot in the Dunkin on Delancey St.

It's my belief that most gaps that we see in performance, gender, income and other areas are simply the result of certain groups pursuing perceived opportunity more aggressively.  Why are there more black people in the NBA (or many major sports)?  Because there was the belief sports offered an opportunity out of a difficult situation, so a larger number of that group spent time practicing.  I love basketball, but early on I saw I lacked the talent regardless of how much I practiced (10,000 hours seems to be the accepted societal myth these days).  I also knew I had other skill sets in which I could excel if I focused on them.

Why are there so many Canadians and Russians who play hockey?

Why are most of my friends Jewish?

Why is one side of my family comprised overwhelmingly by educators, while the other is in some form of business management?

There is a knee-jerk response by the Left to always and everywhere explain gaps by relying on 'discrimination' of some kind.  While this may be true, it's rarely the sole or even the primary reason for gaps.  Gaps sometimes happen because certain groups pursue opportunities and benefits differently and/or more effectively.  But there are many reasons for gaps, and discrimination isn't even the most interesting one to study.

In a recent interview, Bill Nye confirmed his authoritarian credentials by making the following statement.

“The introduction of this extreme doubt … about climate change is affecting my quality of life as a public citizen,” he said. “So I can see where people are very concerned about this and are pursuing criminal investigations as well engaging in discussions like this … they’re keeping us from getting to work, they’re holding us back.”

As far as I know, nobody has impinged upon Nye's quality of life (certainly in no meaningful way, he's still getting his voice heard and making money as a shill), and nobody is stopping any 'work' that I know of.  Conservation efforts on the part of Nye, Ed Begley, Jr., and Leonardo DiCaprio are certainly still taking place.  They are all doing 'work' to pursue their beliefs in stopping the god of warm.

Obviously, what he's implying is that my choice to not agree with him or his cohorts is criminal and worthy of fines, jail, or other punishment he deems adequate.  He also feels I should pay into his religion to perform work deems necessary and I don't.  Nobody is hurting him.  I'm not sure what a public citizen is, at least any more than I am a public citizen and I don't feel I'm being hurt by his behavior.  Of course, he does want to hurt me by throwing me in jail, so maybe I'm just wrong about that.  Gotta get mine in before he does, so I'll take my shots at him with words, rather than criminal proceedings or taxing him to death to build a temple to the god of warm.

Bill Nye, the Shill Guy is moving closer to beingBill Nye, the Fascist Guy.  I think people who misrepresent themselves with the label scientist, when they are really just entertainers, should be faced with criminal punishment.  But I doubt that would get very far (yes, I know he has a BS in Mechanical Engineering, but so do my accountant, my financial planner and my plumber, but they aren't making broad proclamations on climate change and law).

After much collaborative discussion and email, Bird Dog has mentioned our urban hike will take place April 23rd, rain or shine.  We have a limited number of open weekends, so we have to take advantage of the ones which are available.  I've walked the city many times in the rain, BD has it right when he says we are waterproof.  Of course, we all prefer the shine, so we'll have to hope the weather authorities favor us.  

Our starting point will be Dunkin' Donuts at 140 Delancey St.  Why not?  The march will begin at 10 AM, so be there before then. A little coffee and sugar is good to get your motor running. End point will be Grant's Tomb - if we survive the march and get that far.

Some hikers will flake off, I suspect, at various points but it would be cool if many of us could make it to Grant before it gets too late. We'll have to hustle along like a serious posse.

More details below the fold -

This past weekend, Springsteen canceled a concert in North Carolina, on 2 days notice, to protest the passage of law requiring people to use bathrooms based on the gender of birth.  PayPal, similarly, canceled plans to expand operations in Charlotte.  

I understand how tightly politics has become intertwined with business.  Making a statement seems to be the most important thing anyone can do, these days.  So I'll make a small one of my own.  I don't agree with the North Carolina law, but I don't live there.  I think it is over-the-top and excessive control of society by imposing a law where common sense should suffice to reign.  The passage of law doesn't make an idea 'correct' or morally justified.  Even so, I'm still planning to visit my family in North Carolina, spend money there, and enjoy the state's many natural wonders.  I'm not going to boycott a state because I disagree with a law.  If I did that, I'd have problems living in the state I currently reside.

Paypal and Bruce both have the right to make whatever statements they choose, just as I do.  I'm not sure how what they are doing impacts the law, however.  In fact, they both hurt many people in an attempt to 'show solidarity' with...some group or another (I can never tell which special interest groups are getting the attention these days).

Bernie Sanders should take note:

I remember Firing Line as that program I avoided watching at all costs when I stumbled upon it as a child.  It was boring, the man speaking had a funny elitist accent, and it was talking, no action.  My father loved it.

Lately, I've been watching some of the old episodes and have determined (to no surprise) Buckley was often touching on subjects that were timeless.  Much of what he covered is still very relevant today.

A discussion with Alan Ginsburg on what the Avant Garde is, and how it should be making its point in society, would be relevant today.  However, a panel discussion about what a Hippie is...well, that's just good fun.  Especially with a boozed-up Jack Kerouac, in his last public appearance, doing his best to mock a clueless academic.

I think a fun program today would be to review old programs like this, stitch relevant parts together, and show just how deep down the rabbit hole Buckley often went.