Maggie's Farm

Entire group of senior State Department administrators resign.  

Not yet clear why.  Largest single loss of institutional memory and experience on record? 

Late note: 
I've been reading the comments since yesterday, and felt I should clarify.  I posted this as a question, because it is one of the largest losses of institutional memory the government has seen.  I didn't clarify to say this was a good or a bad thing, though the article certainly did.
I was clear (in a comment) that I have no idea if this is good or bad.  I'm not surprised most comments believe this to be overwhelmingly good.  I remain ambivalent.

My uncle spent 30 years working at HUD under many administrations.  He retired in the late 90's because the politicization under Clinton was too much to bear.  I'm sure in the years since, all departments have gotten worse in this regard.  It may be that these losses are no big deal.  I'm less certain.  My uncle was always a very strong believer in institutional memory.  Not that everyone had to be retained, but you always need to maintain a level of management that understands the history and the operational capacity.  That is why I believe the only way this is good is if the department is reduced dramatically.  Which can happen, as there are well over 20 senior positions now open.

From a sheer "Wow, that's pretty big" point-of-view, I'm stunned at the turn of events.   When you drain a swamp, you'd better be sure you know what is replacing the ecosystem.  I am not confident in Trump, while I know many here are.  At best, he remains 50/50 with me.

The article itself was the first I'd read shortly after this occurred.  Many have since followed.  I didn't post it to indicate support for the author's position, just that it was breaking news and rather surprising.  A friend contacted me last night asking what I thought of all this.  I replied "I still don't know.  I don't trust the press, I don't trust Trump, I don't trust politicians in general, so I'm left trying to read whatever erratic signals continue to emanate from liars everywhere." 

I know quite a few women who marched, this being the NYC area.  Some are good friends whose opinions I respect and value.  I know many more who didn't march, whether they sympathized or not.  I was ambivalent.  Marching isn't something I do, I've never been much of a joiner, even for causes I care about.  I don't think marching does anything of value but make the marchers feel better.  If that's what they needed, that's fine (the main response I've seen about the march is "I have more faith in humanity now").  I have always found other ways to feel better when issues of the day drag me down.

It is rather interesting to think about some comments I've seen regarding the march.  One, in particular, I've seen many times.  "You just don't get it, and since you don't, my explaining it won't help you understand, and so you'll never understand."  This was said several times to a friend of mine, and despite his request to be enlightened, nobody was willing to do it.  I filled him in on the nature of why the women were marching (although I find it a confused message).  However, the reaction to him was an indicator of why the Hillary forces lost the election to begin with.  In a nutshell, we're all stupid and they don't want to take the time to explain anything - we just have to trust their superior instincts.  It's also clear by now the only reason to vote for Hillary was 'she's a woman'.  Which wasn't enough of a reason for me, any more than voting for Obama 'because he'll transform race relations' was a reason (given the state of race relations after his transformative role, one can only imagine how awful gender relations may have been after Hillary!).

I had another person say to me, "Your privilege is showing."  Privilege is a word which drives me insane.  We all have crosses to bear, burdens in life which must be dealt with, and biases to fight.  I've seen, and supported the cases of plaintiffs suing for, sexual discrimination.  I've also experienced age discrimination.  I'm aware of the discrimination which used to take place against my Irish ancestors.  Suggesting I have privilege implies I am enjoying the benefits of something I didn't earn.  I earn it every day I go to work and deal with the nonsensical idiocy of liberal Progressives who have lost their bearings over this election.  Remaining quiet during their diatribes is difficult, but could cost me my job.  There's no privilege in political discrimination, and that takes place every day.  Still, I'm not marching for laws, or attention, or anything else to protect myself or my rights to believe what I want.  My 'privilege' regarding gender ends the minute women start having their conversations which exclude men (see the paragraph above).  

I'm not sure when the most dangerous time to live might be, or may have been.  Apparently, some think it is now.  My personal opinion is all eras are dangerous.  Some may have, or had, increased risks.  I can't think of any period of my life where I felt life was on a precipice.  A few days or weeks with elevated fears and tensions?  Sure, I can think of a few.  April and May of 1972, 1979 at the peak of the Iran crisis, 1987 after the market crash, 1991 as Iraq was pushed out of Kuwait, September 2001.  I was too young during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but I'm told that was a very shaky time.  There may be one or two other moments I've forgotten, but 'dangerous time', to me, is almost every day.  Which is to say, so common it's not really all that dangerous.

I focus on the fact, in general, our lives are improving.  Today, most of us hold more computing, audio and video power in our pocket, at a reasonable cost, and this device can help us control our houses, cars, and money with a few swipes.  We text or call someone and are sure they got a message.  Our diets are vastly improved, our choice of diets extensive, and we have more options regarding the quality and types of foods.  When I was in my teens, few people had flown in a plane.  Today, most have.  I was the first of my friends to visit Europe in 1976.  Today, most of them have kids who have vacationed or studied abroad.

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.