Memorial Day

In memory of those who served and lost their lives. I honor your service and sacrifice – it is beyond anything my thanks is worthy of – but you have it.

I do this in many cases, without honoring the root cause of your death. You did not die, ultimately, because of your bravery and valor. Your sacrifices included saving the lives of your friends. But this was not the cause. Your service, and ultimately life, was likely called into need because of war.

War is not a noble thing. There are no just wars, only intractable positions. Yes, some end up being necessary. WWII is the example I will always use. Stopping the Nazi machine was one of the most important things to ever happen.

The world needed the US in the conflict. It was a battle of good an evil. Many wars before and since have turned out to be for gain – for land, oil and other reasons which hold no justification for the violence that ensued. WWII was a war against Genocide and the potential slavery of the planet. So it was necessary. But even then, War is not noble.

But volunteering to put one’s life on the line in the service of others – in serving and protecting during peacetime and wartime is noble. For those that lost their life in the service of our country, I thank you for your sacrifice and I honor your memory. I am sorry that decisions were made that ended up requiring that sacrifice. I promise to never vote intentionally for those who would squander that sacrifice for gain, for show. It is too great a cost to bear even when the cause is honorable, let alone, when it is war.

Expediency

One of the giant fears I have is the short term, small picture, expedient view our leadership and many Americans have. Everything is in faster cycles now, 6 month product cycles in technology, Wall Street’s preoccupation with the present cycle.

Speed, when it sacrifices process, where process is necessary to the outcome, is a problem. That's the definition of expedience. I don't want expedient. I want efficient (for things) and effective (for people).

Slowness, when process isn't complex or is ubiquitous is also problem.

But it is important we differentiate when each of these is the case. It requires critical thinking.

During Covid, process was highlighted in vaccine approval. They went as fast as they could but they determined essential process, given the risks, and moved forward. It was not expedient, despite the political pressure for expedience. One of the problems is that many Americans saw the political push for expedience and subsequently related that to the vaccine development and approval process, which was not the case.

Something in a similar vein is happening with re-opening. 

There's been a constant push to re-open when the science didn't support it and because it was such a fight for public health a conservative stance by the CDC developed - because any little hint that things were getting better was construed as the ability to abandon public health measures.

The political pressure to allow "no mask" between vaccinated individuals was heavy, but when finally announced was so sudden it seemed like it was expediency, not based in science, but based on buckling to the political pressure, when in fact as part of the conservative stance it was held back until the number of vaccinations started diminishing and the hope was (and is, seeing this is relatively recent) that this would incent additional individuals to vaccinate. That has yet to be seen. 

Expediency occurs for several reasons, most of them at least morally corrupt if not logically;

To produce what looks like due process but skipping the steps to actually be due process in an effort to placate process while r ushing an outcome. Willful indifference to the impact of skipping the steps.
In ignorance of the proper steps - or in oversimplification (intentional or due to misunderstanding) of those steps, skipping due process or involving fewer stakeholders than needed for due process, in order to speed things along.
A wish for something other than reality, which can at times, be slow, painful and a lot of work. Hint: Reality always wins in the end.

There are tons of variations and other reasons, but most of the impedance comes for a wish for speed. Understandable - as human beings, we have an urge for immediate gratification, physically (sex, food, other bodily functions) to economic philosophy, speed is frequently seen as the desirable attribute. 

Our ability to master ourselves is limited and in the face of pressure (in business for instance) gives way to pressure on due process. 

And this folks, is why business cannot dictate things like healthcare, welfare and education. Business will build amazing things and services - which survive just as long as they can resist expedience in development, manufacture, in service. And then, like a show whose ratings have dropped, they are eliminated in favor of some new hope for profit. Problem is people get discarded in that process and that cannot happen in people support systems. 

In people systems, process matters. Nuance matters. And in fact, frequently, speed manners which necessitates things like advanced planning, risk assessment and even, gulp, inventory - all of which push against the expedient.

Stephen Covey said this - and also indicated that you cannot be efficient with people, you need to strive for efficiency with things, effectiveness with people.

Efficiency can also be the enemy in people systems. What seems like a proper paring down to minimum essentials can lock a people system up. People systems frequently need lubrication - like forgiveness, time, second and third chances, a bit more than is expected. 

People systems need to be effective. Which is why government and non-profits are where people systems live. Because their goal is not to be profitable. It’s to be effective.

Which is also why, when we try to run these things like for-profit business, we often fail to deliver - and why those who would rather not spend money on helping people will use examples of inefficiency as reasons to cancel programs altogether. That should not be the default.

Certainly these systems must maintain effectiveness. They need to be thrifty where they can. But if your remove money or any resource without due process, the system can be caused to be ineffective or to fail altogether. 

We should look at people systems with an eye for the effective, with a nod to efficiency and completely eliminating expedience. And even in business, when looking from an HR perspective, we should use this as at least one perspective, along with efficiency.

We have to make sure not to confuse expedience with effective or efficient. It is neither - it is an illusion of both, without the good result.

Cancel Culture

Cancel Culture is a term that is used by propagandists to dismiss any change in the current cultural narrative they don't agree with.

Those propagandists and people who either choose to ignore others or are unaware, tend to state that concerns raised about cultural issues are just groups or individuals being offended, unreasonably or are taking advantage of outrage for personal recognition or gain.

But what using a term - a label like "Cancel Culture" or "Woke" does is ignore the reason people are asking for help, removal, apology, or retraction. It generally isn't just because they find something offensive. It's because it perpetuates a cultural "norm" that is harmful to members of our mutual culture.

Beyond being dismissive - labels like this moves the focus from the issue at hand to the opposite of your requested action, skipping the issue altogether.

A person of color asking the state they live in to remove the confederate flag from their statehouse brings cries of cancellation. Of "Woke" culture trying to cancel (erase) history. It shifts the emphasis from the person who has called out the inappropriate and makes the offender appear to be a victim. Which they clearly are not. It's used to emphasize a divide, to fight change.

The idea doesn't even have to be ethnic, sexual preference, religion, age or gender oriented - that I want others to wear masks in public places or get vaccinated until determined by the CDC they are not needed is not centered in my wish to take away someone's "Freedom" or cancel them. It's rooted in the idea that the science shows it reduces the danger and mortality rate of this disease.

Some pundits are saying that we are trying to change to fast - that "woke culture" (I hate this term too) will result in the alienation of half of the country. But guess what…

… this has been a tune that's been played for 100 years or more. Labels have been used to propagandize change points and make the offenders look like victims for a long time.

White people, being called racists because they are racists, hide behind the label of victim because immigrants and people of color are generalized as violent criminals.

Straight people persecuting LGBTQ+ persons hide behind the label of religious freedom, claiming to be victims, having to accept these people as human and equal.

The terms Cancel Culture and Woke Culture generalize and twist in this same way. They make sure the issue itself isn't dealt with. They promote stagnation. And this is where freedom actually gets subjugated. This is where it gets lost. When we fail to recognize real boundaries and infringe upon others we fail to recognize "me first" as the tool of hate and oppression it is.

This is the Orwellian truth from 1984. Not someone forcing you to wear a mask. But someone getting you to think you're a victim and actively hate those asking for change. This is drinking victory gin and ignoring the dreams and ambitions of whole groups of people, because they threaten to change us.

The only way we become better is to recognize our differences and acknowledge that some things we do might not be good for others - and that in agreeing to live in society. our freedoms are limited to the exact point before we infringe upon others freedoms. When we choose to acknowledge each other, we are all free.