The Oregonian reported today that a group of chest-thumping legislators are demanding to know why no one was fired over the Department of Revenue's mistake in issuing a $2 million tax refund based on a fraudulent return. The legislators were from both parties: it was a bipartisan kangaroo court!
Why was no one fired? Well, let's see. Even if the Department of Revenue were a private corporation, firing employees just isn't as much fun as it used to be. Trial lawyers, in a feeding frenzy at the trough of employment lawsuits, have created a world in which relations between organizations and their employees is set by case law, not by any rational approach to human relations. Sure, people can be fired for cause, as long as they aren't part of a protected class, which now includes all carbon-based organisms.
But the Department of Revenue operates under the further burden of being a government agency. The employees who should have been reviewing the tax return are protected by a collective bargaining agreement that allows almost any management decision to be second-guessed by an arbitrator who is for all intents and purposes controlled by the union. If Portland police officers can't be fired for using bad judgment that results in someone's death, or a teacher can't be fired for being unlicensed (licensing is admittedly a silly idea, but it is nonetheless a legislatively-imposed requirement), then how in the world could DOR fire an overworked employee for not having the time to do a thorough job?
And who came up with the insanity that is the Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act? Could it be......the legislature? Sure, it was a different bunch than the current group of grandstanders, but refusal to repeal a bad law is just as reprehensible as passing it in the first place.
And the situation is more complicated. After years of wage freezes and furlough days, many of the good employees have long since left; all that remain are dissillusioned and abused folks just hanging on for their PERS payoff. Budget cuts have created unrealistic workloads; especially in the human services area, it is humanly impossible to meet the demand for service. And who, exactly, is responsible for this situation? Maybe...the legislature?
Aristotle tells us that statesmen can be regular folks and not professional politicians, but they should at least possess moral virtue and the knowledge and judgment to govern effectively.
So the solution is simple. When a group of legislators ask such a flagrantly stupid (and hypocritical) question as, "why didn't someone get fired?"they should be, well, fired.
Oregon Continues to Legislate Morality
Providing jobs for returning veterans is a noble cause; many local governments and private companies in fact do so. In its zeal to demonstrate concern for veterans, the Oregon legislature has moved the practice from a nice thing to do to one that is mandatory for state agencies (and for the state’s whipping boys, the cities and counties in the state).
A November 11, 2011 article in the Oregonian describes a settlement reached between the Oregon State Hospital and a disabled army reserve veteran resulting from the hospital’s failure to “consider his status as a disabled veteran when weighing his application for a promotion.” In addition to a cash payment to the veteran, as part of the settlement, the hospital agreed to provide training for its staff in applying the point preference system in hiring and promoting vets.
Human resource systems in large bureaucracies such as the state government reduce human beings to a single number (made up of the sum of “points”) when making hiring and promotion decisions. Two individuals with the exact same point count will, presumably, perform exactly the same in a work situation. To give veterans an edge, state agencies and local governments must give them more points for being a veteran, and even more points for being a disabled veteran (the soldier in the Oregonian story was disabled through a knee injury in a training exercise).
Realizing that the law doesn’t go far enough, the Oregon legislature is using its between-sessions break to consider a number of refinements. Rep. Orem Bukshot (R-Toadleg) said, “points are good, but if we’re giving points for some lieutenant shuffling papers on an army base in Arizona, shouldn’t we give more points for some guy who’s actually dodging bullets on the front line in Afghanistan?” Not to be outdone, his counterpart in the Senate, Margaret Beekeep (D-Shiphole) said, “I will insist that more points be given for disabilities that arise through combat.” In an example provided through a press release, a limb lost due to an exploding IED would be awarded 22 points, while a limb lost in a truck accident on I-5 next to Fort Lewis while picking up a pizza order would be awarded only 13.5 points.
Lobbyists from a variety of professional guilds protected by the state have taken notice, and have drafted further amendments. Similar points would be awarded for police officers, firefighters, nurses, pastors and rabbis, social workers, sewer workers, garbage collectors, ambulance drivers, and teachers. Injuries sustained while working would result in extra points; fatal injuries would receive the maximum possible points (100). The proposed amendments would make the point count process mandatory for all employers in the state, including fast food outlets and berry farms.
In recognition of the fact that the forthcoming legislation will make it virtually impossible for normal people to understand the legal requirements for hiring and promotion, a new unit of the State Department of Administrative Services has been created to make the hiring and promotion decisions for all organizations in Oregon, including private companies and nonprofits. This division is encountering difficulty in filling its available positions. In response, the governor has formally petitioned President Obama to initiate another war of adventure, in order to increase the supply of available disabled veterans.
Mass Transit
Scientific Earth, July 9, 3012
Eight centuries after the development of anti-gravity vehicles, we take it for granted that humans have always traveled alone or in small groups. Indeed, we see no reason to build vehicles for more than eight people. And historically, this pattern has been repeated. Early humans travelled on foot, and then on animals such as horses or elephants. With the invention of the wheel, they used small vehicles called chariots or carriages, and later bicycles (the precursor to the velomobiles still used today). During the Fossil Fuel Era, humans travelled alone or in small groups (typically the size of a family) in wheeled vehicles called automobiles.
But archeologists have uncovered evidence of other (larger) vehicles, used for a brief period during the Fossil Fuel Era (roughly a thousand years ago). Some of these could seat up to fifty people (sitting and standing). Inexplicably, even after the development of pneumatic tires and wide hard-surface paths called "roads," humans continued to use vehicles with metal wheels running on metal tracks, severly limiting choices of origins and destinations. These could carry several hundred people at a time.
It isn't clear what purpose this form of transportation served; it is hard to imagine a society in which that many people would share a both a common origin and a common destination for travelling. Anthropologists speculate that these vehicles were used to transport slaves, or to carry prisoners to locations for the performance of forced labor.
Eight centuries after the development of anti-gravity vehicles, we take it for granted that humans have always traveled alone or in small groups. Indeed, we see no reason to build vehicles for more than eight people. And historically, this pattern has been repeated. Early humans travelled on foot, and then on animals such as horses or elephants. With the invention of the wheel, they used small vehicles called chariots or carriages, and later bicycles (the precursor to the velomobiles still used today). During the Fossil Fuel Era, humans travelled alone or in small groups (typically the size of a family) in wheeled vehicles called automobiles.
But archeologists have uncovered evidence of other (larger) vehicles, used for a brief period during the Fossil Fuel Era (roughly a thousand years ago). Some of these could seat up to fifty people (sitting and standing). Inexplicably, even after the development of pneumatic tires and wide hard-surface paths called "roads," humans continued to use vehicles with metal wheels running on metal tracks, severly limiting choices of origins and destinations. These could carry several hundred people at a time.
It isn't clear what purpose this form of transportation served; it is hard to imagine a society in which that many people would share a both a common origin and a common destination for travelling. Anthropologists speculate that these vehicles were used to transport slaves, or to carry prisoners to locations for the performance of forced labor.
Union Rights
New Jersey, June 19 , 2012 – Don Vito Corleone has filed suit in federal court alleging that the State of New Jersey has abridged his rights. The whole point of organized crime, he argues, is lost if the state removes his right to enforce membership in the syndicate. The ability of crime bosses to break a few kneecaps is essential to maintaining unity in the family in their continuing struggle to protect their interests. If individuals were free to choose whether or not to join the organization, the system would encourage freeloading, where the mobsters could merely ride on the coattails of the godfather, without actually contributing to the fight. This situation, says Corleone, is intolerable.
The don, through a press release, emphasized the strong popular support organized crime enjoys in society, and warned New Jersey legislators that they would interfere in syndicate rights only to their peril. Thousands of Americans benefit from the services of prostitutes, illegal drugs, and gambling, and organized crime is an important source of jobs and prosperity.
The family has mounted a recall effort against the legislators who have attacked the rights of crime bosses. Campaign funds have poured in from the Cosa Nostra, which according to the US Supreme Courts, has the same free speech rights as any other person. “If New Jersey goes, it will only be a matter of time before the rights of criminal groups to organize are lost everywhere,” Corleone stated.
The don, through a press release, emphasized the strong popular support organized crime enjoys in society, and warned New Jersey legislators that they would interfere in syndicate rights only to their peril. Thousands of Americans benefit from the services of prostitutes, illegal drugs, and gambling, and organized crime is an important source of jobs and prosperity.
The family has mounted a recall effort against the legislators who have attacked the rights of crime bosses. Campaign funds have poured in from the Cosa Nostra, which according to the US Supreme Courts, has the same free speech rights as any other person. “If New Jersey goes, it will only be a matter of time before the rights of criminal groups to organize are lost everywhere,” Corleone stated.
A Problem of Pronouns (Part 2)
The Hatfields and McCoys and the Abuse of “You” and “Me”
A second problem of the (intentional) sloppy use of pronouns is the perpetuation of tribal conflicts. The statement, “We failed to end slavery until the mid 19th century” is meaningless. If the word “we” is replaced by “I” (first person singular), it can’t be true, since I wasn’t alive then. If it is replaced by “you” (everyone left in “we” when I am removed), then it is equally meaningless, since you weren’t alive then either.
A politically-correct use of the word “we” when referring to some historical sense of guilt can easily be corrected by substituting the word “I.” If it doesn’t make sense (“I interned the Japanese Americans during WWII” or “I displaced the Native Americans when I migrated westward”), then use of the word “we” isn’t appropriate either.
“You violated over one hundred Indian treaties” or “We failed
to end slavery in this country until the middle of the 19th
century.”
A second problem of the (intentional) sloppy use of pronouns is the perpetuation of tribal conflicts. The statement, “We failed to end slavery until the mid 19th century” is meaningless. If the word “we” is replaced by “I” (first person singular), it can’t be true, since I wasn’t alive then. If it is replaced by “you” (everyone left in “we” when I am removed), then it is equally meaningless, since you weren’t alive then either.
A politically-correct use of the word “we” when referring to some historical sense of guilt can easily be corrected by substituting the word “I.” If it doesn’t make sense (“I interned the Japanese Americans during WWII” or “I displaced the Native Americans when I migrated westward”), then use of the word “we” isn’t appropriate either.
The pronoun “you” is even more problematic, because it is
both singular (you as an individual) and plural (you and everyone like you).
Its indiscriminate use automatically creates “us and them” divisions and class
separation. “You discriminated against us.” “You invaded my country.” “You need
to solve your problem with fatherless families.”
The use of “you” and “we” in this way can put the listener
on the defensive, and create barriers to solutions to real problems. Consider instead
the statement, “Due to historical patterns of discrimination, an African
American child born in poverty has an especially difficult time achieving the
American dream.” There isn’t any “you” and “we” here, or an implication that I
personally discriminated against this child’s ancestors. It is more likely that
the listener, as a fellow human being, will be more sympathetic to the plight
of this child and open to solutions.
This isn’t to suggest that historic conflicts between races,
tribal groups, or classes haven’t existed, or aren’t important. But solutions
are more likely to come through appeals to common
humanity and concern for others. When a speaker puts himself or herself in the
“we” camp and the listener in the “you” camp, the divisions and conflicts are
perpetuated.
A Problem of Pronouns (Part 1)
“Our world is facing an energy crisis. The solution is simple: we need to drive fuel-efficient cars, live in smaller homes, and buy ‘green’ energy.”
You have heard or read this kind of statement before. Even if you agree with it, the statement makes a serious error in the use of the pronoun “we.” This isn’t uncommon; in many ways, sloppy use of the English language masks underlying assumptions that we too often gloss over.
When a person says that “we” need to change our behavior, they really mean that you need to change your behavior. The speaker can easily change his or her actions or habits; it is the only thing they have control over. What they really want to do is change the behavior of others. If all they are doing is exhorting people for voluntary compliance, the deception would be excusable. But in many cases, the ones saying “we need to do this or that” are really arguing that the government should force you to do whatever it is they want done.
Why do they do this? For one reason, it avoids the problem of hypocrisy. People urging a more energy-efficient lifestyle may well drive pickup trucks and live in large houses. When they say “we” need to conserve more, they mean “I will when you have to.”
A second reason is that the use of the indeterminate “we” may get you to agree with them before you really understand the implications. The statement, “we need to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses,” sounds innocuous, if vague. It’s hard to disagree with. Consider, instead, the statement, “The government should tax you more if you drive a lot, or drive a big car. And the government should add a tax to power plants that burn hydrocarbons, making your electricity bill go up.” Now hold on a minute; I thought the global warming problem was caused by farmers burning the Brazilian forest.
It's not that pleas for collective action are wrong. Our country and the world are facing serious challenges in the environment, the use of bio technology, global trade, violence, poverty, and disease. But the people proposing solutions to these problems should be more specific (and honest) in identifying exactly whose behavior needs to be changed, and how.
You have heard or read this kind of statement before. Even if you agree with it, the statement makes a serious error in the use of the pronoun “we.” This isn’t uncommon; in many ways, sloppy use of the English language masks underlying assumptions that we too often gloss over.
When a person says that “we” need to change our behavior, they really mean that you need to change your behavior. The speaker can easily change his or her actions or habits; it is the only thing they have control over. What they really want to do is change the behavior of others. If all they are doing is exhorting people for voluntary compliance, the deception would be excusable. But in many cases, the ones saying “we need to do this or that” are really arguing that the government should force you to do whatever it is they want done.
Why do they do this? For one reason, it avoids the problem of hypocrisy. People urging a more energy-efficient lifestyle may well drive pickup trucks and live in large houses. When they say “we” need to conserve more, they mean “I will when you have to.”
A second reason is that the use of the indeterminate “we” may get you to agree with them before you really understand the implications. The statement, “we need to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses,” sounds innocuous, if vague. It’s hard to disagree with. Consider, instead, the statement, “The government should tax you more if you drive a lot, or drive a big car. And the government should add a tax to power plants that burn hydrocarbons, making your electricity bill go up.” Now hold on a minute; I thought the global warming problem was caused by farmers burning the Brazilian forest.
It's not that pleas for collective action are wrong. Our country and the world are facing serious challenges in the environment, the use of bio technology, global trade, violence, poverty, and disease. But the people proposing solutions to these problems should be more specific (and honest) in identifying exactly whose behavior needs to be changed, and how.
College Sports
With pride in his voice, my friend Quincy shared some news this week: his son Joshua had been accepted to the University of Washington on a drinking scholarship.
Our colleague from Japan, Ichiro, politely shared that he found it interesting that American universities grant scholarships for drinking and other recreational pastimes. He noted that, if you think about it, a “drinking scholarship” is an oxymoron. He wondered how this might affect America’s future global competitiveness.
Quincy responded that drinking provides the individual with many skills that contribute to a successful life: a sense of camaraderie, a competitive urge associated with drinking games, and increased ability in uninhibited expression of opinions. I wondered if it contributed some negative ones, too: tribalism due to the fanning of rivalries with drinkers from other colleges, and even between fraternities on the same campus. And college drinking seems to encourage fighting. Could our college and high school drinking culture be part of the reason that America seems to view international relations as simply an opportunity to fight other tribes?
I asked Quincy if he was worried about the health aspects of college drinking. Studies seem to point to brain injuries caused by repeated bouts of binge drinking. And, at least from what I see on TV, many college drinkers are grossly overweight. Maybe, I speculated, drinking has overtaken baseball as our national pastime because it’s a sport where it’s OK to be fat. And it seems college drinkers are also more likely to engage in other dangerous activities, such as taking drugs and playing football.
Quincy replied that many aspects of life have risks. At least Joshua was going to college. And Joshua himself admitted that it was drinking that got him through high school.
The scholarship requires Joshua to show up on campus early--in the middle of summer, in fact. When I saw him later that week, I asked him if he looked forward to checking out the library and talking to professors before classes began. He gave me a vacant stare and mumbled, “Whatever, man, I’m just lookin’ forward to hanging out with the other members of the drinking team."
Our colleague from Japan, Ichiro, politely shared that he found it interesting that American universities grant scholarships for drinking and other recreational pastimes. He noted that, if you think about it, a “drinking scholarship” is an oxymoron. He wondered how this might affect America’s future global competitiveness.
Quincy responded that drinking provides the individual with many skills that contribute to a successful life: a sense of camaraderie, a competitive urge associated with drinking games, and increased ability in uninhibited expression of opinions. I wondered if it contributed some negative ones, too: tribalism due to the fanning of rivalries with drinkers from other colleges, and even between fraternities on the same campus. And college drinking seems to encourage fighting. Could our college and high school drinking culture be part of the reason that America seems to view international relations as simply an opportunity to fight other tribes?
I asked Quincy if he was worried about the health aspects of college drinking. Studies seem to point to brain injuries caused by repeated bouts of binge drinking. And, at least from what I see on TV, many college drinkers are grossly overweight. Maybe, I speculated, drinking has overtaken baseball as our national pastime because it’s a sport where it’s OK to be fat. And it seems college drinkers are also more likely to engage in other dangerous activities, such as taking drugs and playing football.
Quincy replied that many aspects of life have risks. At least Joshua was going to college. And Joshua himself admitted that it was drinking that got him through high school.
The scholarship requires Joshua to show up on campus early--in the middle of summer, in fact. When I saw him later that week, I asked him if he looked forward to checking out the library and talking to professors before classes began. He gave me a vacant stare and mumbled, “Whatever, man, I’m just lookin’ forward to hanging out with the other members of the drinking team."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)