Noxious Cheat

The Volkswagen ‘diesel gate’ affair is well trodden territory of corporate malfeasance and fraud. You might wonder why I am mentioning something that is admittedly old news. Simple, it never got the “how dare they!?” type coverage that say a traditional ‘polluter’ like a coal company would’ve endured. Imagine the regulations the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could propose if Access Industries was found to have lied about their emission record.  VW’s cheating perfectly exemplifies the green movement and ‘guilt free’ marketing so effective in scamming American consumers.

When I say ‘green movement’ I am really talking about anyone who believes that switching deodorant brands or light bulb types is akin to adding a few odd years to the life of ‘mother-earth’ (fragile creature that she is). In other words consumers, for whom environmental concerns factor into decisions to buy, sell and grow.  Businesses market goods by emphasizing ‘biodegradable’ ‘recycle-able’ and ‘non-phosphate’ as selling points.

Pushing ‘environment saving’ spray cleaner isn’t any more dishonest than selling bacteria reducing soap; both products serve other purposes so we ignore the larger claims. As long as my Windex with zero phosphates cleans the smudges off the glass I’m not concerned about the chemical makeup of the ‘earth friendly’ spray. Besides I feel good about my purchase knowing that I supported a company that really ‘gets it’. A closer look at the claims made by the companies often reveals some ugliness. This is how VW became synonymous with cheating.

Briefly, here is what happened. The company engineers created a cheat code that set the car in idle when the emissions were being tested. I don’t know how the test works or how the car knows that it is being tested; some engineer knew though and he/she designed the car to basically--go to sleep. Imagine designing a machine that makes a person’s heart rate read between 80-95 beats per minute (resting rate) after running a marathon. Kind of like that.

 The maddening thing about VW is how they turned their emissions records (which were made up) into a selling point despite being the biggest offender. It’s almost as if Major League Baseball, in the early 2000s, created an ‘honest citizen’ award given annually to the high school star who demonstrated clean living and modesty and they called it the Barry Bonds Award. They created advertisements with Bonds talking about 'decency' and 'respect for the game' while some B roll of his highlights ran at length. Volkswagen didn’t just get caught cheating on the test, they got caught writing ‘how-to-cheat’ flow charts and holding ‘how-to-cheat’ seminars. 

  

The argument supporting VW’s software hack is that emissions in the U.S. set by the Environmental Protection Agency are much tougher than the EU equivalent test. Understandably they found it easier to create a program for beating the test instead of fixing the problems associated with diesel emission compliance. Did they have to use their clean diesel program as a point of emphasis? Did they have to show expensive and clever ads like the one above?

The folks at Volkswagen gave the greenies everything they wanted, an affordable vehicle with earth friendly bona fides and a built in humblebrag. “No it isn’t an expensive car but the industry is committed to sustainability, I just wanna…you know, do my part.” Volkswagen had a huge success story in total earnings and as a company dedicated to air quality and ‘sustainability’. As long as no one looked too closely the engine of deception ran like a...a fine German engineered motor.

 Too many times in recent history green development has been exposed as a thin scab covering a festering sore. From the Solyndra company that promised a revolution in solar energy, to certified organic labels on food and zero emission cars, the claims didn’t deliver. In many instances they were outright scams. The green movement is rife with ‘guilt-free’ products and better living through sustainability, just don’t look too close. Do yourself a favor and buy the cleaner that works, don’t worry about the phosphates.

Ice breakers: dangerous game of chance

 

Ice breakers: those obligatory dinner party questions that are an easy way to make large groups seem more personal. Questions like “What is the most interesting job you have worked?” or “What would you do with a million dollars?”  We think our lives are ordinary, relative to others in the room. These games are designed to get us interacting and talking with each other. Occasionally they go awry and tell us something we never wanted to know.

The Icebreaker I used was ‘deserted island’ where everyone says which book they would bring if they had to spend 10 years alone on an island. The class was a group of Mongolian students learning English at a Chinese International school--long story don’t ask. I was teaching English for the whole school and that day just happened to be my day with the Mongolian kids. One by one they walked to the front of the room, repeated the phrase “my name is ____, I am _____ years old, I would read ____”. It was a modified Ice breaker so that they could use as many English words as possible.

 Not sure what type of answers I expected, probably lots of Harry Potter reading materiel.  I nearly choked after the first student expressed admiration for Hitler by choosing to bring a copy of Mein Kampf on her extended stay. Ditto for the second and third and after a dozen or so kids the verdict was in on Mein Kampf. Nearly everyone wanted a copy. They didn’t know the German title for Hitler’s book but they managed in their halting English to mutter “gitler buk”. I imagined men with hidden cameras were going to jump out of the closets and force a relieved laugh out of me so I could join in the absurdity. The kids talked about Hitler like he was Abe Lincoln or Winston Churchill, famous for being great. Adolf Hitler was a great German leader the way that BMW is a great German car.

It was an illuminating this is the ‘real world’ type moments. I realized people have different expectations of leadership and the qualities that constitute greatness. In much of the non-democratic world strength equals greatness while weakness equals failure. Winston Churchill was a great leader because he saved Britain and fought back against an unrelenting assault from Luftwaffe bombing campaigns designed to decimate her Majesty’s industrial advantage. Churchill’s moral courage against an evil ideology is what makes him great. 

George Washington is also a model of resolute character in the face of a decimated army and swift moving British troops. Having lost men to starvation and desertion, the continental army managed to fight on with almost no support from Congress. As the first president of the newly formed United States he could have become emperor but stepped aside giving power back to the citizens.

Hitler though?

Take away morality and we are left with superficial qualities describing famous men (strength, power, decisiveness, popularity). Churchill and Washington were moral men and their leadership qualities are buttressed by the justness of their causes. Admiring Hitler or Mussolini or Genghis Khan inverts the graph by making strength and power the goal instead of the effect. This Machiavellian framework is more present in the liberal democratic world than even I thought back in my English teaching days.

How about this for an Icebreaker: “How far in the Presidential election cycle could a billionaire con-man known for reality TV antics get?

The success of Donald Trump is proof that there is a human tendency to see leaders as powerful agents ‘winning’ battles and crushing opponents. I don’t think Trump is Hitler or Mussolini but he does have ‘strong-man’ qualities suggesting lack of a moral center and an indifference to the rule of law. He may lose the primary to Ted Cruz and be just a bad memory. But Trump has shown a quality that many of us didn’t realize existed among Americans--a willingness to follow a strongman.

Use Icebreakers at your own risk. You might get more than you bargained for.

TPP: Good for America?

Trade bills are massively complex legal and domestic brambles, fiendishly organized by bureaucratic wonks and industry insiders. Pity the poor sods who have to read and sign off on the whole mess. Trade is generally good however for countries, good for industries and good for economies. Competition from abroad forces innovation at home. When countries play by the rules (don’t laugh!) consumers benefit and economies grow. The stated objective with international agreements is to convince countries to agree to lower barriers to trade. This isn’t completely wishful thinking. The current World Trade Organization (WTO) started out after World War II as a sensible framework agreement among partner nations to lower tariffs. Overall trade has increased since and barriers are lower than ever around the world.

The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is the new one that includes much of East Asia, Mexico, Canada and a few countries in South America.

I really just need to know 2 things about the deal:

--What happens is we just ignore the deal?

--How do we ensure the playing field is level?

What is the alternative to the deal? Will ‘US Inc.’ miss out on a contract that leads to increased demand for American produced goods or will this new agreement collapse like a sand castle at high tide? In other words is this something America needs or something the world needs and can’t get done without the largest economy on board? 

We won’t know the details until this summer when congress gets the monstrously large contract and pretends to read it. This is really the crux of opposition to the bill. The sheer size and impact of a trade bill (all of them) almost guarantees a lack of oversight and policing among trading partners. Americans dislike international organizations because they take responsibility away from sovereign countries and surrender it to something (not someone) unaccountable and opaque. They are reluctant to sign up for anything that might curtail U.S jobs and national security. Americans also innovate better than anyone though and by and large reject protectionism. Imagine a company like Uber being forced out of Chicago or Los Angeles because the taxi unions proved too tough a challenge?

Another problem is that nations tend to favor their domestic industries even when ‘favoring’ them is explicitly outlawed in the bill. What mechanism exists for airing grievances between two conflicting parties, one accusing the other of cheating? It can take years to sort out through legal or diplomatic means. China was found in breach, by the World Trade Organization, of limiting their rare earth materials for export in 2014. The United States and others brought the dispute to court in 2012. During the two years when both countries were tied up in litigation, American tech companies that use huge amounts of rare earths had to get it wherever they could find it. When trade is stopped by legal wrangling business suffers.

A quicker way around the legal maze is to use an equally unfair method to benefit your domestic industry. Say, give your American chicken farmers export subsidies, or place quotas on Chinese steel, or slap a bogus safety exemption on wine from France.  This is a terrible option and almost always leads to counter measure upon counter measure until both countries are in a trade war.  Transparent rules and easily understood agreements are the goal in negotiations. Sovereign democratic nations will always have trouble in satisfying the home town industries through tax breaks and other financial incentives while making counter deals with trading partners.

Free traders will support this deal because the word ‘trade’ is in the title. Union types will oppose the deal because the word ‘trade’ is in the title. No one knows at this point what kind of deal it is but one thing is for sure, it will be massively complex.

   

Supreme Obstinance

I am delighted Republicans in the Senate are just saying "no", and "Hell No" to Obama's Supreme nominee. I haven't studied the man's philosophy (Merrick Garland). It doesn't matter. This isn't about his view on gun rights. It isn't about abortion. It isn't about the role of judges, the role of presidents or the role legislators. It isn't about prior rulings or future possible rulings. It isn't about his age, sex or religion. It isn't about his view of prayer in schools, monuments on capitols or gays in the military. It isn't about his understanding of judicial restraint, judicial activism or judicial review. One could say it isn't about Judge Garland at all.

It is about Executive overreach and disregard for Constitutional limits--on pretty much everything. Congressional Republicans are mad. They should be.

 Three points upon which the anger rests--so we can have a manageable number.

1. The sketchy and dangerous Iran deal, negotiated with guarantees from a lying apocalyptic Islamic Republic. The ayatollahs have always maintained their enrichment of uranium was for peaceful means. We never believed them. Why do so now? A needless bit of theater.

2. The handling of the Bowe Bergdahl POW exchange. 5 Taliban commanders were released without approval from the DOD or proper Congressional oversight. This was illegal and calculated. The Rose Garden ceremony welcoming him home was a disaster; he looked like a hero despite putting soldiers in harms way on countless search and rescue missions.

3. Don't forget the Dream Act. Despite the lovely sounding name it makes immigration law irrelevant for millions. Because, well...votes...what else?

So stand on principle, or just venomous rage, and ignore the media. George Will is already attacking GOP leaders. It really is true that everyone in Washington hates Republicans, even fellow Republicans. Let em hate.

Appreciation: the sweet tooth of life

We visited Wisconsin Dells every summer when I was a kid. Few things stand out quite as clearly as the souvenir stores and chocolatier shops. I loved watching the apron clad women making fudge on the massive round table. One woman would slowly pour the liquefied chocolate onto the round marble slap while others used spatulas to form the rapidly cooling mass. This was in an old time candy shop with large open air windows and tourists piling in gawking curiously at the spectacle unfolding. Whenever the heated bowl was ready to dump another sweet mix of sugar, cream and chocolate, the onlookers swarmed the boutique shop like pigeons to seed. The thrill of another sugar high drew many as the best fudge is always the freshest cut, at least it seemed. The joy of watching a sticky mass take shape in the hands of a skilled craftsman was also part of the fun.

 I don’t think I realized it as a kid but I enjoy watching skilled people work. The attraction of the fudge making is in the repetitive folding, scraping and slicing the gooey mass until it resembles a giant candy bar. Fudge making does not qualify as an officially craft worthy skill with special schools and degrees. But it does take some dedication and technique that can only be learned by spending a season toiling over a heated cauldron and learning when the soupy mess is perfect for pouring.

 I like to watch skilled craftsman in their craft, whether candy makers or painters.

 Bob Ross (PBS pretty little tree guy) owes his success to rather simple broadcasts where he transforms blank canvases into nature art quicker than most 1^st graders do paint by number. The art is a little kitschy but watching him work is hypnotizing.

Precision demands skill. Skill takes time. The pleasure of watching a skilled craftsman perform a task is tied to an inherent understanding of the effort required to become great. Most people probably don’t realize it but admiration of a dancer or painter, athlete or glass blower is an acknowledgment of the hard work undertaken by the artist/performer. 

Appreciation of skill is appreciation of the effort, the time. Some talent is inherent but skill is the rounded edges that only hard work can smooth out.

Life is richer when you appreciate the work behind the skill. Remember what stands behind the great shooting of Steph Curry or the technical brilliance of Neal Peart. You’ll never watch a basketball game or listen to a musical performance the same again. Appreciation is the sweet tooth of life.   

Night Train to Lisbon

     

I watched a movie last night about a Swiss man who saves a girl from jumping off a bridge by shouting at her and grabbing her before right before she leaps. This gentle man turns out to be a school teacher on his way to class. He brings the girl along just to keep an eye on her. She bolts from his classroom though just a few minutes into his lecture and he pursues hoping to return the coat she left in his classroom. He discovers a book in her coat pocket with a ticket to Lisbon tucked inside the pages. He rushes to the station and hops on the train hoping to catch her, return the coat and do…what?--the viewer isn’t sure. Returning a coat to someone is a nice gesture but hoping a train from Bern to Lisbon to do so is mad. Something else is driving this man and the book that contained the ticket is the catalyst to exploring a new city, new story and a new personality for Raimund. The book is rare; less than 100 were printed, we find out after the author’s sister explains the origin of the book, the life and times of the author and why he never wrote another. But the main point of the movie is how the book becomes an engine for transformation in the shy and frumpy Swiss lecturer. Within the framework of the main story, an older man following a young girl across Europe, lies a complex political, philosophical and romantic narrative that feels unfinished despite having happened over 40 years ago. In the process of searching for the girl, Raimund peels back the historical layers of a resistance movement from the early 1970’s in Lisbon that the book’s author was a part of. Many of the characters from the book are still alive, as he discovers, and many live in and around the Lisbon. Most don’t like to talk about the past, especially since much of what they did was illegal. Raimund manages to solve some mysteries surrounding the fate of the resistance and how Amadeu do Prada died by tracking down people who knew him.

The film uses flashbacks throughout the movie to fill in the missing pieces of the now dead author; the audience discovers it as Raimund does. One scene involves Amadeu giving a speech to his classmates in which he basically disavows religion and God in general and replaces it with some mix of humanism and communalism. This should be a high point in the film but it just feels messy and needlessly subversive. The passion is there but the pointed words miss their mark. This is a Catholic school where liberal studies are frowned upon or banned outright. Amadeu and his buddy are free thinkers among a group of bright students but the supposed oppression from the priests never materializes. The audience is expected to take it on, ahem, faith that these guys keep students in fear to God and the state—almost no distinction is made between religious control and state control. We understand the intellectual discovery the boys undergo but can’t sympathize with their rebellious zeal. Hence the speech Amadeu delivers in church that sets the tone for the trajectory of rebellion among the Portuguese youth and the subsequent resistance against the fascist government.

I found it difficult to follow the philosophical underpinning of the movie. We hear words from Amadeu’s book (the one Raimund found) read aloud during countless flashback scenes as a narration device. The philosophy of the man and everything he wrote is supposed to drive the film as discoveries are made about human character, love and friendship. The words are philosophical reflections on existence as the characters move toward crisis. But the deep thoughts of Amadeu do Prada come off empty and insignificant. We can see the effect the book has on Raimund who is enraptured with discovering the author’s life and times. Indeed, Raimund is becoming a new creature; one with a purpose and joy and an engaging woman to share it with. No real attempt is made to connect Raimund’s journey to Amadeu’s or to show the viewer why the book has such a positive influence on Raimund. Two separate stories are told with only marginal similarities between Amadeu and Raimund, the past and the present. Raimund’s journey is possible after the discovery and intrigue brought about by the book, but the real spirit of the age is not effectively present in the unsuspecting teacher.

As a Christian I’ve always been bothered by films and novels that present Godlessness as virtue. Secular humanism, the idea that human intelligence is supreme, ignores the supernatural world and the very real battle between good and evil. Always presented as light, the truth that humanism shields people from has the power to save them. Mainly, that only through belief in Christ, and acceptance of His death and resurrection, can a person be redeemed and brought into the light. True darkness is believing that only through human reason and scientific curiosity can a person be enlightened and fulfilled. In oppressive governments the Church frequently becomes an engine of the state so that no distinction is made between the two; one supports and legitimizes the other. During the middle ages the Pope played the role of king maker by supporting princes, or their rivals, in their quest for the throne. Preachers in the Antebellum South supported the institution of slavery as necessary for educating and saving the ‘heathen’. In Night Train to Lisbon the church is an institution for educating but one that also works to keep literature (Das Kapital, Thus Spoke Zarathustra) that is contrary to belief in God out of the hands of students—least they see the ‘true’ light. Religion in this context is to be cast aside like iron shackles bolted to the wall of government control.

Amadeu do Prada experiences liberation and freedom, love and indifference in his short life. Raimund stumbles onto the same path and completes some of the work that Amadeu was never able to, but comes to the same humanistic conclusions about life and purpose.  How sad it is to be presented with only two choices in life; both of which lead to destruction. The ordered gloomy existence of a life spent in solitude is equal in misery to a carefree life unmoored from substantive believe. Thankfully we have another choice: “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is new creation. The old has passed away, behold the new has come” (2 Corinthians 5:17 ESV).

The Right Amount of 'Juice'

 

I worry about my ability to manage people more than once a day; I’ve been a manager of employees in some capacity now for close to ten years. I started out a Target overseeing the checkout lanes and fetching coins for the cashiers when they ran out, fixing technical problems with the equipment, dealing with unhappy customers, and occasionally ‘coaching’ employees on performance issues. The last one is by far my least favorite. If I had to pinpoint the really distasteful part of it I would have to say it is not knowing what level of ‘juice’ to bring to the review. I will define ‘juice’ as the level of seriousness in attitude that gets funneled from boss to underling. Too much juice equals R Lee Ermey, the foul mouthed drill sergeant from Full Metal Jacket.; Not enough juice and you sound like the milquetoast Lumbergh from Office Space.

‘Review’ is a misleading term that sounds weirdly positive; this is a you-screwed-up-again-hearing where appropriate measures are taken to prevent you screwing up again.  This is where mistakes are easy to make by the boss (me) in choosing the wrong amount of ‘juice’ for the occasion. “Listen you little punk…” is not a great way to start the meeting since neither party wants to be there. Hostility and venom are frowned on by society (nanny state whiners!) and really sets the tone of nasty discourse which leads to hurt feelings and sometimes crying; that was only once though Get off my back!

The drill sergeant (don’t call me instructor!) aggression works well in the Army and since most people won’t see basic training a more realistic level of ‘juice’ is needed. As abrasive and direct as the angry sergeant can seem, an equally ineffective tactic is the how-can-I-say-you-did-wrong-without-really-saying-it approach. This is the passive aggressive mode that creates more confusion than it solves problems. Not telling someone that they were late to work and that makes others late to take break is not being honest about the level of selfishness that being late equals. The ‘buddy’ manager is one who isn’t getting the most out of employees either in honesty or effort but it is easier than addressing the problem. Besides, the careful teaching methods and attention to non-offensive verbal communication from corporate lectures can make anyone nervous about saying the wrong thing. The ease with which a company can be sued over management practice or procedure forces research teams to cover all possibilities in the drafting of the language. Some people are just more difficult than others and no full proof plan or tone of voice in a meeting will affect a change in behavior. That is why big companies with solid rules of behavior are better for young managers. A strong set of guidelines acts like a backstop for someone inexperienced in how to treat a rule flaunting worker. The amount of ‘juice’ is a secondary concern for the young manager since all that need happen is for the manager to issue a general statement of fault and a general statement of corrective actions to be taken.

This is how I started; with a uniform set of guidelines that employees were required to follow. It was the best learning tool for dealing with employees when they messed up and I learned how to talk to them without getting really upset and without being afraid to talk straight to them about their infractions. I remember some of them got very upset with my attention to the strict application of discipline for employees being late, taking long lunches, using cell phones during work and not showing up for work. I understood how uncompromising I was being, especially in relation to some of the other shift managers, but I was concerned about being taken advantage of. A young manager has to set a tone, at least that’s what I told myself, in order to get respect and finish the many tasks required of him/her. Besides, there was an out-of-control aspect to the way the cashiers were managed with everyone working at his/her own speed and effort. No one had really held the corporate line on bad behavior; it was a perfect job for me. I needed to be tough and I was.

One really important lesson I learned was to always correct someone away from the prying eyes of others or they will feel humiliated. Having people show up late was common problem when I started and on a particular night I noticed a cashier coming in over 30 minutes late for his shift. “Hey” I yelled at him across the aisle, “You were supposed to be here over a long time ago, now everyone’s break is late thanks to you”. He shrugged it off with a nervous laugh but asked if he could speak to me after work. I agreed but couldn’t imagine what excuse he could come up with before his shift ended. When we did sit down he pointed his shaky finger my way and gave me a litany of reasons why my ‘calling him out’ was wrong. He clearly had spent the last few hours letting my angry words wash over him and allowing it to shape his concise and bitter retort. If I would have uttered one word in protest he probably would have slammed the table and reached over it to choke me, he was hot. I let him speak and didn’t interrupt; he had a great argument and he didn’t make excuses for being late. His complaint was in my lack of discretion in taking him to task where others could hear and humiliating him. It was a real lesson for me in how to properly address a concern. I apologized when he finished unleashing the pent up frustration and although I am not sure it was everything he wanted, he did seem to relax after the ordeal. He sensed my genuine regret and we left for the evening on good terms. I only stayed at the job for a few more months, but I learned a key lesson from that employee. No matter how upset or frustrated you are and no matter how urgent the situation, never humiliate an employee who is responsible to you.

I used too much juice in dealing with the situation that evening but since then I’ve gone soft on occasions when I should have held a difficult line. The trick is to constantly evaluate and try to improve. Write things down that went well and things that didn’t go well and surprise yourself with lessons learned along the way. I’ll probably always worry about my ability to manage people and the effect of my style on overall success. But being concerned is a necessary to improving. You can’t fix what you don’t notice.