Maggie's Farm

May 5th is the date for the Urban Hike.  Upper Manhattan is the route.  We have some interesting stops.  Starting at Lincoln Center, then working our way up, we will take a gander at 5 of the remaining Carnegie Libraries in Manhattan.  There is the Collyer Brothers Park, where the infamous pair lived (the house torn down).  High Bridge, Morris-Jumel Mansion, Sylvan Terrace, the Little Red Lighthouse.

Right now the trip is 11 miles.  My plan is to hike it a week or two prior, plot out some resting locations and eateries, and then make adjustments.  11 miles is long.  Shorter than last year's, but still very long.  9am start time - but beware.  May 5th is the Five Boro Bike Tour.  We shouldn't have any issues with this.  The tour is more or less out of the Central Park area by about 11am, and it's all on the east side.  By the time we reach the Collyer Brothers Park, most of the bikes will be past.  However, beware of getting to the city early!  The Five Boro Tour usually can add 30-45 minutes of entry time into Manhattan if you're coming from the north or east of the city.  Plan ahead and keep your radio tuned to traffic reports as you try to get to Lincoln Center.

 Here is the current path.

Open to suggestions, changes, commentary - feel free to share any thoughts you may have.  If you plan on attending and would like to see something in particular, let me know and I'll add it.  The lucky ones who survive can all hop on the subway and we'll head down to Grand Central for a post-hike cocktail at Campbell Apartment.  

Aside from being one of my favorite films, A Clockwork Orange is a lesson on society, management of society, and freedom.  The book, more than the film, drives this home.   The film, however, does outline some important aspects of choice and what happens when you reduce or limit the choices available to society and/or the individual.

Alex DeLarge suggests the man who chooses to be bad may be better than the one forced to be good, since at least a choice was made. This concept completely underlines my opposition to Socialism - because most people will choose to be good, while very few choose to be bad, if left to their own devices. In fact, the free market literally relies on good behavior, or it would fail on the whole.  Without trust, the market is useless.  The net result of the incentives provided by choice is increased productivity and value for all humanity. Alex lived in a Socialist world....and in being forced to be good, willingly chose to be evil, as it was the only choice he had available in a non-free society.

 “By definition, a human being is endowed with free will. He can use this to choose between good and evil. If he can only perform good or only perform evil, then he is a clockwork orange - meaning that he has the appearance of an organism lovely with colour and juice but is in fact only a clockwork toy to be wound up by God or the Devil or (since this is increasingly replacing both) the Almighty State. It is as inhuman to be totally good as it is to be totally evil. The important thing is moral choice. Evil has to exist along with good in order that moral choice may operate. Life is sustained by the grinding opposition of moral entities. This is what the television news is all about. Unfortunately there is so much original sin in us all that we find evil rather attractive. To devastate is easier and more spectacular than to create.”~Alex DeLarge

Alex was a creator, a creator of chaos within the order which was forced upon him.  He, like most people, loved the process of creation.  His form of creation, within the limits of the society he was raised, happened to be highly destructive.

While he was not considered a generally 'good' mayor, Robert Van Wyck certainly is an integral part of the city.  I've taken the Van Wyck Expressway many times, but I've never wondered who Van Wyck actually was.

A Tammany operative, his scandals eventually cost the group power.  Robert was the first mayor elected after the consolidation of the five boroughs.

On Valentine's Day 1899, he signed a law renaming Western Boulevard.  Western ran north of Columbus Circle, and his law changed its name to Broadway, thereby extending the famous thoroughfare.  Today, Broadway runs all the way north on the west side, then turns east at Inwood toward the Spuyten Duyvil, across into The Bronx, and up into Yonkers (where it becomes South Broadway).  At 178th Street, it becomes Route 9.

Robert A. Van Wyck (1849-1918) was born in New York City and graduated from Columbia Law School in 1889. In 1897, Van Wyck became the first mayor of Greater New York after the consolidation of the five boroughs in 1898. During his term in office, Van Wyck renamed Western Boulevard north of Columbus Circle “Broadway” in 1899, extending one of Manhattan’s most famous streets. On March 24, 1900, Mayor Van Wyck began another New York institution by breaking ground in front of City Hall for the city’s first subway.

An expressway bearing Van Wyck’s name was built to connect John F. Kennedy, then Idlewild, Airport to several of the main east-west thoroughfares that run through Queens. Initial construction of the Van Wyck Expressway (I-678) was completed in 1950, and the road was officially opened on October 14 of that year. The construction of the Van Wyck Expressway required the impressive engineering feat of elevating the Long Island Rail Road switching yards and terminal in Jamaica, Queens (at 1,100 trains a day one of the busiest railroad junctions in the world), up into the air to allow for construction of the roadway underneath

There isn't much to say about this, except what we all know.  The press got it wrong by a long shot, is now incapable of winding it back, and the Progressives have latched on to a David Hogg-type character they can hate for a single reason.  He smirked (no, really, that's their reason, it has nothing to do with a MAGA hat.  I've already been told it has nothing to do with that hat.  Nothing.).

Let's see where the basis of hating the smirk comes from.

"The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself – anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offence. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called."~George Orwell, 1984

 I'll admit smirking can be criminal.  I'm not sure a teen's confused smile is a 'smirk'.  But if it is, it certainly can be criminal, as we've seen:

As I mentioned in an earlier post today, Chris Christie spoke at my conference.  He was part of a panel talking about news, and of course everyone wanted to know about 'Russia'.  

Christie was my governor for 8 years.  I never felt he was a good governor, but he was better than his predecessor, Jon Corzine, by a long shot.  He did a few good things in his first few years, then got a little full of himself.  I never believed he would work on the national stage, and he didn't.

However, he fills in on sports talk on WFAN and I listen to him there.  He's a good commentator.  Lots to say, good insight.  He's never afraid to talk.  As he spoke to us, he was on a panel with 3 others, and he spoke for 90% of the session.  All of it was good.

The one takeaway I really liked was his view on Trump.  Most of you know I am not a Trump fan, but I'm in absolutely no way a hater of Trump.  I just don't agree with some of his policies and I can't stand his attitude or behavior. 

That said, I've never felt there's anything 'there' on 'Russia'.  Guess what?  Christie didn't either, and as he said, it's more likely to turn out that the Mueller investigation shows that the Trump campaign was dysfunctional, that portions were a mess, that some people were engaging in questionable behaviors, but nobody knew what anyone else was doing.  He said that's how he felt while he worked on it.  It was clear to him Trump loves a chaotic atmosphere because it produces disruption.  Christie pointed out that at no point, so far, has Trump 'failed' in any meaningful way.  Every time people count him out, he comes through with a victory.  Christie believes this, in part, is related to Trump's management style.

This style, he says, is drawn from the Mike Tyson school of boxing.  Don't have a strategy.  People with strategies tend to overwhelmingly lean on them even as they fail.  As you may or may not know, Mike Tyson made his statement, "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."  Tyson later explained this saying, "How much can you endure, buddy?"  Trump pushes everything and everyone to their limit.  Christie said he loves to see how much they can take, because invariably he can outlast them and that's how he wins most of the time, when he wins.

Christie pointed out that Trump loses quite a bit, too, but he's also good at turning that around, or portraying it in a way to make people see him as a winner regardless of his failure.

That said, his final point is that Trump does face some strong headwinds with the Cohen situation.  It's becoming clear he engaged in very questionable behavior.  Christie, however, does not feel the Democrats have the will, the capability, or the desire, to impeach Trump.  It's his view, if they do, they will create a platform for Trump to ride to victory easily in 2020.  He said it's better PR and better theater to talk about it and drive emotion, but actually doing anything will certainly work against them heavily.

I am WAY behind on posting.  I still have Iceland videos and pictures to post, as well as some from my recent Caribbean sailing trip.

However, for the last 2 months I've been very busy with a restructuring of my office.  My job has shifted, as has my department, my management, and my co-workers.  I'm essentially doing the same job, but I've dropped some of my duties to another, so I'm training them as I focus more on the important parts of my new role.

I'm sorry for not following up on Iceland yet, but I will. 

That said, I returned from our Caribbean sail (no WiFi for 10 days, both a blessing and a curse, mostly a blessing) and turned around and flew to a conference to consolidate our restructure.  At one point in the conference, we had guest speakers.  One was Chris Christie (more on that later) and the other was Kobe Bryant.

I have many more Iceland pictures to post, but I've been busy.  We left knowing our pet bulldog was on her last legs.  She'd been diagnosed with congestive heart failure 2 weeks prior to our trip.  Making the decision on what to do with her was easy, Mrs. Bulldog said we'd go and let a friend watch our baby.  Everything worked out for the best, and we came home to a happy pup, all of 12 1/2 years old.  With Thanksgiving coming, she'd get to see all her favorite family members.  We took our annual picture on the beach, which she's featured prominently in for all of her years.  She was pleased to see her bull terrier cousin, her Nanny and Poppy, and all the people who made her happy over the years.  She had even taken a trip down the shore to see my family.  

I've been back from my Icelandic sojourn for a few days.  Needed a few to decompress.  We landed at 4:45 on Thursday, but sat on the plane on the tarmac for four and a half more hours due to the storm.  Then, after we were disembarked, the public transport at the airport was such a mess we didn't get to our car until midnight and didn't walk in our front door until 1am.  Thankfully, I was able to work from home Friday, and the weekend was a mess just trying to pull all the pieces back together (get the dog, go to a birthday, etc.).  The old saying that you need a vacation from the vacation doesn't usually apply to me, but definitely did this time.

I think the best place to start, though, would be with the Snaefellsness Peninsula.  Our first day was spent up in this northeastern section, as I mentioned a week ago.  This is a section of Iceland which is overlooked by guide books.  The two we utilized had no more than two pages about it.  I think it deserves more coverage.  It's true you only need a day to see it, you can drive around it in about 4 hours if you don't stop too much.  But you may want to stop, and in fact I say you should especially if you love volcanoes (dormant/extinct), lava fields, waterfalls, hiking and general wilderness.  My pictures will never do any of the Icelandic regions justice, but I'll share them so you can all get a feel for the place.  

The one thing I found intriguing was, at 6am as we drove north from the airport to our first destination, how incredibly dark it was.  Without many inhabited districts, most of the roads are extremely dark, and the cloud cover (which prevented us from seeing the Aurora) was thick.  As you drive north, with the Greenland Sea on your left, even with the darkness it doesn't take long to realize there are mountains all along on the right.  Most probably aren't more than 1,500 feet high, but all are snowcapped due to how far north we are, which makes them seem positively gigantic.  I was told most can be hiked in a few hours. 

Two full days in, and a third about to start.  It's 8am and no sun yet (not until 9:40, and only until about 4:30).  Some quick comments.

Very expensive, as we expected.  Not even by a little bit.  Dinner at a good restaurant in Grundarfjord was $200 for four people.  The starter of seafood soup was phenomenal, and probably all we needed.  That alone would have run us $100.  Second night was fish and chips and beer for all.  $150 all in.  Bakeries are less expensive, but also less filling.  We brought energy bars, to fill ourselves in the event of timing issues.

Heading to the Golden Circle today.  We did Snaefellnes Peninsula, a raw beauty that is overlooked by most tourist books.  It's a full day, but you stop to hike, too.  2 hours hiking to Eldborg Crater, 30 minutes at Saxholar Crater, the Black Church, the rocky beach at Hellnar, waterfalls everywhere (literally everywhere).  Kirkufjell Mountain is particularly interesting (especially for people who follow Game of Thrones, which I don't but my boys do).

Yesterday did Stykkisholmur, climbed Helgafell and made our wishes (make sure you don't speak, don't look back, and face East).  We stopped at 2 fjords, then drove down to Reykjavik and walked most of the city at night.  My son wanted to see the Phallogical Museum.  It's a real thing, and I guess it's worth about 20 minutes.  Personally, I wanted to visit the Punk Rock Museum and my family indulged me.  It resides in a transformed public restroom, which seems fitting.  It was opened by the Sex Pistols' Johnny Rotten.

The city is active and beautiful at night.  Lots of people out and about.  The Opera House is gorgeous and fun.

No Aurora yet, and the weather reports aren't being kind.  My main reason for coming here may not be fulfilled (I guess that's good...reason to return since we're only doing the western side).

Pics to come later. 

I'll be heading out to Iceland this evening. 

Looking forward to getting away from the madness of the last few months.  Huffpo is now assuring me that the Dem's minor victory was a massive rebuke of Trump.  I still don't see how outspending the Republicans by about 15% and only gaining a slim House margin while losing seats in the Senate is a massive rebuke.  Democrats seem to live in a dream world.  I know they felt a lot of pain on Wednesday and now they are just trying to rearrange chairs on the deck of the Titanic.  Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Occasional Cortex are the new face of their party, and it's sure to cause them problems nationwide.  I don't expect much to change for the Democrats.  

In NYC, the self-righteous and self-assured were absolutely certain the 'blue wave' was coming.  The only blue wave I'm looking for is in a thermal pool in the next few days.  I'll simply take in some fjords, the Aurora Borealis, see Glacier Bay, lava fields, etc.  

It was supposed to be a relaxing trip with me and the Mrs.  Once we'd booked (cheap - $320 per seat R/T all in) flights and our AirBnb, we added our sons.  Sticker shock upon arrival with food and drink, I've heard.  The boys follow "Game of Thrones", filmed in Iceland, so that will be an enjoyable portion of the trip for them.

Maybe I'll even learn to pronounce some of their words.   

Just voted.  Took me 45 minutes.  Longest it's ever taken, midterm or otherwise.  Lots of older people, but it's midday so younger people may vote later.  Still, given the rain, I was shocked at so many people who were there.  It's pouring, and typically that keeps older people at home.  Not this year.

The time it took was due to several factors.  New machines were confusing.  More people than expected showed up.  Rain meant some poll workers were cleaning up rather than assisting people.  Too much going on.  My son came home to vote, and he took over an hour.

I don't care who he votes for, as long as he doesn't vote for Menendez.  I've never liked that corrupt jerk.  I told my son this, then told him the letter-writing battles I had with that fool back in the 90s when he was my Representative.  Back then, he was a Gephardt-style protectionist.  Today, he pretends to be a free-trader.  He's not.  He just wants money shoveled into his pocket for his support down in DC.  Corrupt as can be.  Hopefully my son will not vote for him.

It's my view the high turnout is better for Republicans than Democrats.  While some will say that's counter-intuitive, due to new registrations and younger people not being apathetic as they usually are, I have a different view.  National elections with high voter turnouts usually indicate a desire for change.

Midterms, which typically go against the sitting President's party, have higher turnouts when people want to protect what they have.  These elections are national in nature only in aggregate, people usually think their representative is 'safe' and are complacent.  Showing up to vote, rather than being complacent, means you're concerned about something, and it's usually that you'll lose some constant that you're familiar with.

Either way, one party is going to have some soul-searching to do.  If the Republicans suffer a "Blue Wave", there will need to be some work done on what they stand for and represent.  I don't believe this outcome is likely at all.

I do think that the Dems will get a small House majority. Very slim.  But this will force them to re-think what they stand for, because they are looking for a referendum.  I do not think they will get one.

If the Republicans (which I don't think will happen) manage to hold or extend both the houses, that will be a very clear message to the Dems that they need to be retooled in a major way.  Frankly, I'd prefer this because it's the best chance to extend the addition of Constitutionalists into the Supreme Court.  With Breyer and Ginsburg nearing the end of their useful tenures, it will be important to maintain this position.

2 of the 3 outcomes, and the one I believe is most likely, don't really favor the Democrats in the long run.  But anything can happen, and polling has been notoriously awful.  From the extremely small sample size I've seen, though, I don't think the Democrats are going to have their 'blue wave'.  

We shall see. 

Today in a meeting, which for the sake of clarity is 50% male and 95% white in its make up, someone mentioned a trade article.  The article stipulated that "watching XYZ practice occur among companies is like watching a middle-aged white man try to dance."  Obviously, the idea is that middle-aged white men can't dance, it's awkward, and funny to see them try.  These companies clearly are not doing something well, I get it.  That's not an issue.

The issue became the humor of the statement, as our leader stood up and pretended to do a 'dad dance' and soon everyone (except me) was howling.  The jokes about middle-aged white men dancing flew for about 2-3 minutes.  I've got a sense of humor, so I wasn't offended, and I even think the joke was on the mark.  But I started thinking what if the joke had been "like watching an obese woman climb the stairs"?  Add in any racial qualifier just to salt it a bit.  What might have happened?  Would someone have been fired or, at the very least, brought into HR for a stern talking-to and some sensitivity training?  Absolutely.

The other night, Hillary Clinton stated that Political Correctness is about "politeness".  Boy, that's pretty telling.  As far as I can tell, PC behavior is about not having a sense of humor about yourself and your background.  It's about taking yourself too seriously.  What was even more amazing, to me, was that she followed that up with a joke about Eric Holder and Cory Booker being black and "they all look the same."  Well, she's a female, a Democrat, and wife of the first 'black' president (remember that gem?).  So she gets a pass.  She's fundamentally diverse and I, as a middle-aged white male, most certainly have no diversity in me.

Diversity is not a goal.  Diversity is barely a thing.  If it's something you want, great.  Diversity is important.  Maybe it isn't.  That's up to you, it's up to the companies that want to pretend it's something more than virtue signaling.  But if it is real, then the behavior I saw today has to stop.  Nobody has a claim on the right to champion 'diversity' if they think this kind of thing is 'funny' but changing the gender or race makes it 'not funny'. 

I spent the summer of 1982 with a group of 7 other people, one who was my brother, the rest were his high school and college friends.  We had a 36 year get together not too long ago, and 2 of them had become lawyers.  As the weekend wound down, we were entertained as the two of them talked 'shop' and one asked the other a question - "Does your firm have a diversity officer?"  The reply, not surprisingly, was "Yes."  Thereupon they launched into a Q & A regarding "What exactly does a diversity officer do?"  The answer from both was "I don't really know."

I work at a major corporation and we have a diversity officer.  I'm not sure what that position does, besides pay well and provide a public face at industry events which address diversity.  The reality is the position isn't much more than virtue signaling.

I happen to support diversity as a concept, but not as a goal.  For one reason.  It can't be a goal because it can never be 'finished'.  My favorite moment at any HR event was many years ago when my firm was giving everyone an update on diversity and pointed out that our employee base mimicked the make-up of the US in terms of percentages for gender and race.  That, in itself, was considered an accomplishment.  But more needed to be done, of course.

My boss, a female, raised her hand and asked a simple question.  "When are we finished?"  HR was floored.  What did she mean?  My boss said, when you have a goal to achieve something, you are finished at some point.  She was curious what the goal of diversity was and when it would be met.

I've mentioned this story before.  It's important to revisit.  What's really at stake when corporations invoke 'diversity' isn't anything truly tangible.  I know there are almost no firms that value older employees.  They are expensive and their experience is no longer valued the way it once was, so the 'diversity' they offer isn't a valued diversity.  Older employees are often viewed to be technologically impaired, owning mindsets which are not as 'out of the box' or forward-thinking (I take issue with both these points).  Diversity for most firms isn't really diversity at all.  It's just virtue signaling to the public.  True diversity is recognizing that different personalities and viewpoints have value and welcoming them as part of the mix so the overall organization benefits.  It's not a goal, just something which should be done naturally.  Do you need an officer to tell you how that's done?

Not really a new story, there have been plenty like this in the past, but it is possible to build a home that can withstand a hurricane.

It's still more expensive than a standard home, by about 20%.  Those costs are coming down, though. 

Surviving a massive hurricane is a mixed blessing.   If everyone else has lost their home, you've lost your neighborhood, and a good portion of your value.  

However, as the costs for building this sort of home continue to fall, more homes are likely to survive, and overall values along the shoreline will be maintained more effectively.

About a year ago our niece had a child.  Shortly afterward, my in-laws felt it was time to go meet their great-grandchild.  It became a family event.  5 of us flew from various locations to Arizona.  We rented a van and took the 8 week old on her first grand family adventure, spending a weekend traveling through Sedona, up to Williams, and riding the Grand Canyon Railroad up to see the big hole in the ground.

A friend of mine recently posted a picture on Facebook of an old church in Europe, commenting "I wish we had old things like this here in the U.S."  My tongue-in-cheek reply was "We do!  The Grand Canyon is much, much older."  In many ways, the Grand Canyon is much more beautiful than a church or any architecture man could devise.

I had never been to the Grand Canyon before.  I can't say anything which hasn't already been said about its grandeur.   I'll toss in a few pictures of Sedona and the Grand Canyon, but the reality is pictures simply can't capture the immensity and beauty.   

We were on the South Rim, about mid-point of the canyon.  It's 18 miles across at this location, and the North Rim is higher than the South Rim, so you look 'up' at the far side.  Nowadays, there is no private property in the area, except for whatever was grandfathered in when the park was created.  At this location, the El Tovar Hotel is right on the rim.  We didn't stay, but it is a beautiful hotel if you enjoy the look of rustic West (I do). 

The Grand Canyon Railroad is a fun way to get to there, especially if you're a family with kids.  You don't get much time at the canyon itself, about 3 1/2 hours.  However, you don't have to drive, you get to take in the scenery, the kids interact with cowboys and there is a train robbery on the ride home.  It leaves at 9:15 am from Williams, Arizona (the last town bypassed by Interstate 40, and a town chock full of Route 66 memorabilia) and arrives at the canyon around 11:30.  A tour guide gives a running commentary as cowboys stroll up and down the train strumming guitars and singing tunes for tips.  There are a variety of vistas which are passed.  High plains, forest, ranch, and mountains are all part of the two and a half hour trip.  We saw elk, antelope, and jackrabbit galore.  

I really enjoyed this trip, and there's so much to see I am inspired to return.  I doubt I'd do the railroad again, and I'd like to see the canyon from several different places.  I'd also like to go down into it, which I didn't have time to do.  Always leave something for the next time.  That's pretty much my motto when I travel.

For some reason, New York is upset that it pays 30% more, per capita, in taxes than the average state.  Well, I'm from New Jersey and we pay slightly more than New York.  New York is upset that it gets back much less than it pays out.  Again, I'm from New Jersey and we get even less back.

New York is a big state, and a relatively wealthy one.  New Jersey is wealthier.  I figure we have more to be upset about.

Today there was a brief article on Netflix which claims that it's a kind of Ponzi scheme.  This is based on a concept which I found interesting, but misguided.  Netflix gained 7mm subscribers, but spent $7bb on programming.  The next question was "were these 7mm people spending $1,000 a quarter?"

That's the wrong question. 

The nice thing about programming is it's evergreen.  Once you have it - you have it forever.  So it has value over time, value that is increasing, since revenue can be generated forever, in theory.  $7bb in programming didn't generate 7mm subscribers, but the range and quality of programming on Netflix did.  Assuming each subscriber wants to watch every program on Netflix, that could take some time, especially if Netflix continues to add programs, which they will.  Since each subscriber pays $11 a month,  the cost of new programming is amortized over about 7 1/2 years, assuming subscribers stay that long.  It seems, right now, that the average subscription is about 13 years or more (my parents have had it in some form since it started in 1997).  

I stumbled on an article about how people tend to disagree regarding facts.  It was clear from the start the author was seeking to explain the hyperpartisan nature of our political divide.  I wasn't too impressed with the outcome.  The closing paragraph stipulates our liberal democratic institutions are designed for disagreement, but these disagreements hinge on agreeing upon facts, a process which seems straightforward, but which he implies is broken and liberal democracy cannot fix.  I'm not sure I agree that the process of agreement is straightforward, and I do believe liberal democracy can fix the issue.

I, however, disagree with the closing paragraph.  The problem, as stated, is incorrect. People tend to agree about facts, so the adjudication process remains adequate.  The issue seems to be that few people want to agree, even when they know they are wrong and the facts have presented themselves. If you play poker, as I do frequently, you've probably seen exchanges like this.  You have 2 Queens in the hole and one on the board.  But there are 3 spades on the flop, and betting action convinces you that a flush is in play.  You convince yourself the 3 Queens will hold, and shove all your chips in. When you lose, you blame the person with the flush for not folding to the clearly superior bet, rather than analyzing your decision to shove as a mistake in the face of the facts as they'd presented themselves.

Mao began his Cultural Revolution after the failure of the Great Leap Forward.  The Democrats are now enforcing their version of Cultural Revolution now that their economic policies have failed to yield their Utopian Vision.

We've seen the revolution begin at leading digital firms, which release people like James Damore, who provide well-written and well-documented critique of hiring practices, while offering better alternatives which don't happen to fit the political agenda.  It's called a "gender memo" and he is a pariah.  The claim is he 'got the science wrong', but while it's not 100% spot-on, some scientists said it's pretty good and certainly not a rant or screed.  Nevermind.  It doesn't meet the level of agenda-setting which Silicon Valley is pursuing.  Fire him.  More importantly, find ways to limit the speech of employees and online users.

Now, with Kavanaugh, you can keep your job if you commit slander, but try to provide some semblance of balance and you're going to have to go.

For now, the Cultural Revolution will seek to take away reputations and livelihoods.  I worry that it's on the verge of getting violent and taking lives.  As the anger and outrage of the Left continues to grow - and if the much-ballyhooed "Blue Wave" does not appear in November (I, for one, do not think it will) - you can be sure it will get increasingly more violent.  Reputations and jobs won't be enough. 

I've seen this term used to describe Kavanaugh and his friends.  It is used in a pejorative manner, designed to wrinkle noses and cause people to roll eyes.  A Frat Boy isn't welcome.  He considers himself exclusive.  He is boorish, usually a heavy drinker and engages in wild behaviors, often degrading women and/or abusing them.  He is a troublemaker, not much of an academic, usually superficial and probably narcissistic.

I'm a Frat Boy.  Proud member of Delta Tau Delta at Syracuse.  Gamma Omicron chapter, and my younger son is also a member.  My older son was in Kappa Sigma at Miami University (OH).  My grandfather was in a fraternity at Penn, the name of which eludes me.  When he heard I'd joined a fraternity (first of his children or grandchildren to join Greek life) he was ecstatic.  I never got a chance to share stories with him, he died my junior year.  My niece joined Delta Delta Delta and my sister was in Alpha Phi.  So I think it's fair to say many in my family are 'Frat Boys' of some kind.

While I understand the negative connotations of the term, I reject them all.  After all, I was a shy introverted kid trying to find his place at a large university.  I had no money, so I'd go to fraternities during Rush to drink for free.  One of them kept inviting me back.  I liked all of the guys and had a class with two of them.  I turned down their offer.  They said think about it.  A week later I said yes.  The fraternity helped me develop lifelong friendships with people who I won't see for years at a time, and we'll pick up where we left off when we do get together.

Sure, we partied, we had fun, we were wild in many respects.  But we didn't degrade women or abuse them.  Heavy drinking?  Some took place, I did my share.  We did have at least 3 people wind up with addiction problems over my 4 years, but that's out of 160 people who passed through the house.  Basically 1.5%, but that is well below the estimate of 9.4% in the US as a whole.   These 3 are all recovered now (although that's a lifetime thing).  I'd say that while we did quite a bit of drinking and smoking, we were pretty a pretty solid group of young men.  When our friends announced their addiction, we didn't turn our backs.  We were there for them, not as crutches, but as supportive friends.  I'd say our fraternity reduced the addiction likelihood because it's an accepting and supportive culture.

I have a habit of posting longer pieces, but this will be relatively short.

A friend called today, asking if I could help her daughter find an internship.  Of course, I love helping young people, so I said fine and asked what her major was.  "Corporate Psychology" was the answer.

I know several contributors are in the field of psychology or psychiatry, so maybe they can help me understand what this is, and if it's real.

I am aware that it would be in the Human Relations department.  Given my recent post on "A Culture of Thank You", I have a feeling I know what kind of stuff is involved.  I'm not sure I like the concept.  Any time a business meeting starts with phrases like "it's ok to be vulnerable" or "everyone needs to be aware this is a safe space" I become immediately wary of the goals of the meeting.  Not being involved will likely work against you.  So will being involved but asking the wrong questions.  I think that's what Corporate Psychology is about.  Manipulating people to devise a particular result.  But maybe I'm wrong. 

I doubt I can say anything new or add to what we already know or believe about Kavanaugh v. Blasey-Ford.  But what has happened is concerning on so many levels.  As a man, you worry about being viewed as 'tone-deaf' to women's needs or being hurtful of victims.  As a woman, you will be questioned if you're not lined up behind the accuser simply because 'you know' what it's like.  As a citizen, you worry about the clown show in Washington and the damage it is causing to the standards we have.

Living in the NYC region, I see and hear things the rest of the country has to hear (media center) but doesn't really want to.  I get it in double-barreled doses, though.  NYC really is a bubble of tremendous proportions.  A friend of mine, today, told me he doesn't think Kavanaugh is fit for the Supreme Court, but not because of yesterday.  He felt the Fox interview was weak and showed someone without great knowledge or understanding.  Then he added, "His emotional outburst yesterday showed me someone who can't control his temperament."  Basically, yes, it was about yesterday.  Kavanaugh's background puts his other concerns to rest, but this is Progressive Central - the People's Republic of New York is taking shape.

Let's address the outburst.  Kavanaugh's reaction was understandable.  If I was held accountable for all the stupid things I did when I was 15, I think I'd probably go nuts.  If I was being held accountable for something I know didn't happen, I'd be angry and ready to take on the world.  Damn right I'd be pissed.  The media is judging him poorly because of his emotions.  His identity is now being carefully packaged as a person unable to control his anger.  I think having to discuss my 15 year old farting would, on its own, piss me off.

 My friend said "this appointment is bigger than yesterday."  Yes it was.  Now it's not.  Now it is about yesterday.  The Democrats chose a battlefield, spent two weeks preparing that field with full media support, failing to expect what happened.  They expected the Republicans to cut and run.  For once, the Republicans fought back.  From my perspective, and I was never a huge Kavanaugh fan, I shifted my views.  I thought he was barely an OK choice originally.  Good background, solid credentials, but weak in areas that matter to me.  The Democratic strategy made me realize he was an excellent choice.  It wasn't about yesterday until it was.  It certainly changed my view on his desirability, and I was sold.  His identity is one of candid and thoughtful forebearance.  Anger plays a role at the right time.  But Kavanaugh never attacked his accuser.  He showed sympathy and concern.  He lashed out at the politics of identity utilized to smear him.

“The unthankful heart…discovers no mercies; but let the thankful heart sweep through the day and, as the magnet finds the iron, so it will find, in every hour some heavenly blessings!”~Henry Ward Beecher

My Senior VP has been in place for just over a year.  He's made some changes to our team which are, without going into detail, good.  He's altered many of the previous cultural differences between our department and others we work with, and has found a way to eliminate much of our own department's internal strife.  Many of the changes he's made are superficial.  Overall effectiveness and productivity is unchanged.  He'd say morale and confidence of the group are higher.  I wouldn't disagree, but it's a subjective opinion.  My view has always been an efficient and productive department has the highest morale.  People like be useful and productive.  It carries its own rewards.

Still, I can't fault him for following the path he has.  Either groupthink has set in (my view) or he's made real, tangible differences that will last.  I'm a natural skeptic.  People can feign behaviors for only so long, but I hope I'm wrong and he's right.  

One behavior which he has instituted, however, has me cringing.  Not because it's terrible.  Not because it's wrong or subversive or disturbing in a broad sense.  From my perspective, based on my own personality and 36 years of working, it's just uncomfortable and personally intimidating.  Thank you is something for me and whoever I'm with.  I'm curious to see what others think.  I've shared this with many people and gotten many different responses.