Showing posts with label perfection. Show all posts
Showing posts with label perfection. Show all posts

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Ode To Pig Pen


A Dog Has Died

My dog has died.
I buried him in the garden
next to a rusted old machine.

Some day I'll join him right there,
but now he's gone with his shaggy coat,
his bad manners and his cold nose,
and I, the materialist, who never believed
in any promised heaven in the sky
for any human being,
I believe in a heaven I'll never enter.
Yes, I believe in a heaven for all dogdom
where my dog waits for my arrival
waving his fan-like tail in friendship.

Ai, I'll not speak of sadness here on earth,
of having lost a companion
who was never servile.
His friendship for me, like that of a porcupine
withholding its authority,
was the friendship of a star, aloof,
with no more intimacy than was called for,
with no exaggerations:
he never climbed all over my clothes
filling me full of his hair or his mange,
he never rubbed up against my knee
like other dogs obsessed with sex.

No, my dog used to gaze at me,
paying me the attention I need,
the attention required
to make a vain person like me understand
that, being a dog, he was wasting time,
but, with those eyes so much purer than mine,
he'd keep on gazing at me
with a look that reserved for me alone
all his sweet and shaggy life,
always near me, never troubling me,
and asking nothing.

Ai, how many times have I envied his tail
as we walked together on the shores of the sea
in the lonely winter of Isla Negra
where the wintering birds filled the sky
and my hairy dog was jumping about
full of the voltage of the sea's movement:
my wandering dog, sniffing away
with his golden tail held high,
face to face with the ocean's spray.

Joyful, joyful, joyful,
as only dogs know how to be happy
with only the autonomy
of their shameless spirit.

There are no good-byes for my dog who has died,
and we don't now and never did lie to each other.

So now he's gone and I buried him,
and that's all there is to it.

by Pablo Neruda

Mr. Bojangles, by The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band 
("his dog up and died ... after 20 years he still grieves")



Friday, September 18, 2009

What If We Went To A Gummit Meeting?

To really succeed in government, it is sometimes helpful to know what your job is, and whether it involves any duties.

Ask around among your co-workers.

"Hi," you should say.

"I'm a new G-employee.

What is the name of my job?"

If they answer "long-range planner" or "lieutenant," you are pretty much free to lounge around and do crossword puzzles until retirement; most other jobs, however, will involve some work.

There are two major kinds of work in modern government:
1. Taking phone messages for people who are in meetings (G-meetings), and

2. Going to G-meetings.
Your ultimate career strategy will be to get to a job involving primarily No. 2, going to G-meetings, as soon as possible, because that's where the real prestige is.

It is all very well and good to be able to take phone messages, but you are never going to get to a position of power, a position where you can cost thousands of people their jobs with a single bonehead decision, unless you learn how to attend G-meetings.

The first G-meeting ever held was back in the G-mezzanine Era. In those days G-man's job was to slay his prey and bring it home to G-woman, who had to figure out how to cook it.

The problem was, G-man was slow and basically naked, whereas the prey had warm fur and could run like a dissident. (In fact, it *was* a dissident, only back then nobody knew this.)

At last someone said, "Maybe if we just sat down and did some brainstorming we could come up with a *better way* to hunt our prey!" It went extremely well, plus it was much warmer sitting in a circle, so they agreed to meet again the next day, and the next.

But the G-women pointed out that, prey-wise, the G-men had not produced anything, and the human race was pretty much starving. The G-men agreed that was serious and said they would put it right near the top of their "agenda!"

At that point the G-women, who were primitive but not stupid, started eating plants. And thus was modern agriculture born. It could never have happened without G-meetings.

The modern G-meeting, however, might be better compared with a funeral, in the sense that you have a gathering of people who are wearing uncomfortable clothing and would rather be somewhere else. The major difference is that most funerals have a definite purpose. Also, nothing is ever really buried in a G-meeting.

An idea may *look* dead, but it will always reappear at another G-meeting later on. If you have ever seen the movie "Night of the Living Dead" you have a rough idea of how modern G-meetings operate, with projects and proposals that everybody thought were killed rising constantly from their graves to stagger back into G-meetings and eat the brains of the living.

There are two major kinds of G-meetings:
1. G-meetings that are held for basically the same reason that Arbor Day is observed - namely, tradition. For example, a lot of managerial people like to meet on Monday, because it is Monday. You'll get used to it. You'd better, because this kind accounts for 83 percent of all G-meetings held (based on a study in which I wrote down numbers until one of them looked about right). This type of G-meeting operates the way "Show and Tell" does in nursery school, with everybody getting to say something, the difference being that in nursery school the kids actually have something new to say. When it's your turn, you should say you're still working on whatever it is you're supposed to be working on. This may seem pretty dumb, since *obviously* you'd be working on whatever you're supposed to be working on, and even if you weren't, you'd *claim* you were, but this is the traditional thing for everyone to say. It would be a lot faster if the persons running the G-meeting would just say, "Everybody who is still working on what he or she is supposed to be working on, raise your hand!" You'd all be out of there in five minutes, even allowing time for jokes. But this is not how we do it in America. My guess is, it's how they do it over in Japan.

2. G-meetings where there is some alleged purpose. These are trickier, because what you do depends on what the purpose is. Sometimes the purpose is harmless, like somebody wants to show slides of pie charts and give everybody a copy of a big fat report. All you have to do in this kind of G-meeting is sit there and have elaborate fantasies, then take the report back to your office and throw it away, unless of course you're a vice president, in which case you write the name of a subordinate in the upper-right-hand corner, followed by a question mark, like this: "Norm?" Then you send it to Norm and forget all about it (although it will plague old Norm for the rest of his career). But sometimes you go to G-meetings where the purpose is to get your "input" on something. This is very serious, because what it means is, they want to make sure that in case whatever it is turns out to be stupid or fatal, you'll get some of the blame. So you have to somehow escape from the G-meeting before they get around to asking you anything. One way is to set fire to your tie.

Another is to have an accomplice interrupt the G-meeting and announce that you have a phone call from somebody very important, such as the president, Rush, Goofy, or the pope. It should be either one or the other. It would sound fishy if the accomplice said, "You have a call from the president. Or one of the others."
You should know how to take notes at a G-meeting. Use a yellow legal pad. At the top, write the date and underline it twice.

Now wait until an important person such as your boss starts talking. When s/he does, look at him/her with an expression of enraptured interest, as though s/he is revealing the secrets of life itself.

Then write interlocking rectangles. If it is an especially lengthy G-meeting, you can try something like this:
If somebody falls asleep in a G-meeting, have everybody else leave the room. Then collect a group of total strangers from the past Administration, right off the street, and have them sit around the sleeping person until s/he wakes up. Then have one of them say to him/her, in a very somber voice, "Robert[a], your plan is very, very risky. However, you've given us no choice but to try it. I only hope, for your sake, that you know what you're getting yourself into."
Then they should file quietly from the room.

Apologies to Dave Barry.

Friday, May 1, 2009

Most Liberal Of Months May Be May

Every so often we post an article about extinct species or those in danger of becoming extinct.

Many times the species which is in danger of becoming extinct ends up being scientific textbooks printed at a particular time.

Perhaps the authors and publishers should learn a lesson from a certain month?

Consider the question: "Is it wise caution, or weak uncertainty, to use the word 'may'?"

"It may be this way", or "it may not be that way", sounds less dogmatic than "it absolutely and categorically is this way, period, end of discussion"; but does 'may' sound flimsy or weak?

We have complained that a lot of extinct textbooks use the former, the dogmatic approach.

In this time of tight money and tight budgets we advocate the liberal use of the word for what may be the most liberal of months: MAY.

Now, on with the show:
But the chemical abundances of the newly discovered galaxies would suggest they are only about 3 billion or 4 billion years old.

"We're not saying there's a complete breakdown in the theory of galaxy evolution, but that these objects do run counter to the standard model," said Indiana University astronomer John Salzer, the lead author of a paper detailing the study in the April 10 issue of the Astrophysical Journal Letters.
(Space dot com, emphasis added). Good. The professor is not saying there's a complete breakdown in the theory of galaxy evolution just because some data turned it all upside down.

Our hypothesis is that he is experimenting with the potential for the increased use of the word 'may' in the future. He may point out that these objects counter the current standard model, which is now obsolete, or he may not; yet.

So, you text book publishers with very, very tight schedules may relax a bit. He may advance that idea next time, but for now you may have some inking room. If fact, you may have the whole month of May.

As one remedy, we suggest not publishing books during the last months of an election cycle, where dogmatism seeks its apex as November nears. As November nears the honour of becoming the most dogmatic of months.

Thus, we suggest publishing scientific textbooks, instead, during more liberal budget months.

Those months in the spring after D.C. has grappled anew with reality; after having abandoned reality during the fall election months; and after having regained it anew when "reform" reaches its crescendo once again in May.

In conclusion, it is certain that there may be a new meaning to "political science" before next May.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Perfection: The Enemy of The Essential?

What does that mean? Words take on meaning from the context in which they are spoken.

Today it was spoken in the context of taking care of little children. Of denying them care or stopping their suffering.

Bush II refused, twice, to sign the bill President Obama signed today. The bill was not perfect as far as Bush II was concerned, and thus his demand of perfection was the enemy of the essential care some 8 million American children need.

Instead, his war in Iraq was more perfect in his analysis, and therefore required more attention and much, much more money than the suffering children here at home.

Thus, Bush II's perfect war was the enemy of the children's essential needs.

Which led to the perfect political storm we now call the '08 elections. A storm that blew the republican presidency away, blew control of the House further away from the republicans, and blew control of the Senate further away from the republicans.

Undaunted, the republicans still seek a perfect bill, while the nation's economy cries out for essential stimulus. As it turns out, we have "progressed" toward economic death these past 8 years, and now we need some essentials to stop the "progress". So please don't demand perfection now.

Demanding perfection should never send any one person or any nation to the hell of depression. Depression a la 1934 according to England's Gordon Brown.

Yes, President Obama was spot on, all too often in republican political gamesmanship, perfection is the enemy of the essential.