Hilary won’t get the Democratic nomination because if Democrats were rational and valued qualities like experience, ability to execute, and the manner in which a leader solves problems over things like style, how one looks in a suit, and that which makes one feel warm and fuzzy …

Well, then, wouldn’t they be less likely to consider themselves Democrats, capital D?

(ANP ducks for cover.) 

When I was at The Bank, a swarm of pen-clicking auditors descended on my pack-ratty cubicle to Taylorize my every move.

• What was my process for making sure affiliates didn’t steal artwork from Zurich museums?
• Which word list did I consult whilst subtly insulting certain colleagues via email?
• How, exactly, did I sort and organize all the trees that came out of the printer?

All this documentation was necessary to ensure Sarbanes Oxley compliance.  We can’t have pussy cats obscuring card art, after all, lest a consumer complain when her credit card arrived in its welcome pack without an actual kitten.

Annoying as it was, I can’t lie, I secretly liked it.  I love engineering processes and checklists and forms.  For routinized, predictable tasks, nothing pleases me more than the transparency of a well-documented list, embedded macros optional.  It helps when people outside your direct line of work start poking around; you’re already armed with the documentation you need to tell them to stop being an idiot educate them about what it is that you do and why they should shut the how that benefits them in the long run.

Documentation also allows for cross-franchise efficiency.  I am squirming in my seat right now and must use the word amortize, because that’s what process transparency does within an organization:  it allows a knowledge worker the opportunity to amortize the routinized aspects of their jobs across different silos within a complex organization.  (At least, in theory.)

I wish, then, that auditors would come and demand some Visio flowcharts from our gubmint.  If we could just take a step back, look at the carnival blinking lights that is our obscenely large government, cross-check various programs and align them against their ultimate goal (reduce poverty, stop abuse, prevent the munchies), perhaps we’d be able to identify some effort duplication and thus, opportunities for streamlining.

I understand the intense effort that this would involve, how much time it would take, etc. etc.  And I know that budget line complications would give some pooh-poohers the chance to say, arms skyward, “There’s no way in hell we can operationalize this.”  And yet, when my crazy little slice of the earth at The Bank had to hit multiple budget lines, we ultimately figured out how to git ‘er done.  And the effort was worth it.

When I think about the machinery that undergirds so many of the services etc. that we take for granted, I can’t help but think it’s a good idea to occasionally peek under the hood and make sure it’s built real good.

And anyway, wouldn’t transparency be a good thing?  Wouldn’t a nice deck teeming with 3 pt. bold black lines around boxes that point to other boxes give way to more strong minds collaborating and considering more efficient means to achieve the stated end?

Over my mid-morn coffee, I just read an article in the Daily News about three guys who’ve each served nearly thirty years for murders they committed. The Daily News is hot and bothered that Spitzer would allow the parole board such leniency. “What about the victims’ families?” they wail.

I don’t know how to think about this issue, but here are some questions that come to mind:

• What about forgiveness? After nearly thirty years, I’d think the victims families might want to rise above and move from a place of vengeful retaliation to grace & forgiveness.
• Also not sure if “eye for an eye” is exactly what we should be going for in society. If I’m a family member of someone who is murdered, is it really my place to decide punishment for the murderer?
• If we as a society didn’t believe in rehab — well, then — c’mon, no one in America today can tell me that we as a society don’t subscribe in some way to the notion of rehabilitation.
• What if we had a “halfway county” — instead of a halfway house — where peeps on parole could begin anew? Sort of like how America and Australia got its start? We could pick a state like, oh, I don’t know, Utah to make things interesting, and let them create their own little world.
• That would be an awesome sociology / anthropology experiment.
• That would be an awesome movie. ConAir –> ConCounty.
• Dude, let’s write a screenplay.

Back to .xls.

I was reading something this morning in the free daily newspaper that lands on my doorstep each morning about Off Track Betting, that oft-maligned sad lump of an institution that I’d love to have as a front for a super-secret VIP restaurant in the back.

For those of you unfamiliar, the OTB is a generally rundown establishment with a green sign, linoleum, sad fake wood paneling, and fluorescent lighting.  Folks in the OTB tend to have the look of folks in the second or third-tier casinos playing the slot machines.  They are down on their luck and just hoping that if Santa’s Little Helper can eke out a victory … “99 to 1!”

So I read in this article that our club dues — our taxes — are highly involved in the operations of an OTB.  It breaks down like this:

• Somebody decided that bookies were bad and decided to legislate-n-regulate
• So OTB becomes the de facto legal bookie
• This is nice because now gub’mint has given its Good Housekeeping to OTB and, it seems, OTB only
• But now, OTB must also give a chunk o’ change back to the hand that created it
• So of the millions that the OTB makes, it’s got to give a large percentage back to gub’mint

Okay, the problems that I have with this are pouring out of  my ear-balls.  I have to wonder:

• On what premise was the bookies-are-bad legislate-n-regulate decision based?
• Do those premises hold true today?
• Are there other means to combat said premises that might be superior than the OTB?
• What kind of people is the OTB making money off of?
• And thus, what kind of people is the gub’mint making money off of in the money they get from the OTB?
• And related, what kind of people is the gub’mint helping with the money they’ve taken from the OTB?

I just feel a little annoyed about this.  First principles and all.  What may have been a good idea with the limited information we had in 1902 (or whenever) is likely not as good an idea now, what with our increased volume of information –> knowledge –> understanding –> wisdom.

If anyone knows any more about the intricacies of this OTB crum dum, I’d love to learn more.

ARGH

(ANP v OTB!) 

I’m watching 60 Minutes and this realtor in Stockton, California made an interesting conjecture:

• That the commodification of the mortgage industry has contributed to the mortgage-backed securities debacle
• That is, the depersonalized nature of access to finance had made people feel less bad about defaulting. It’s not A Wonderful Life. It’s eLoan.com. (etc.)
• Suggesting that the weak bonds of our atomized society have contributed to this
• And that the value of a walking neighborhood was not appropriately considered in our march towards efficiency and productivity
• Which is to say, at some point, a cool analysis of how society is productionalized suggested that it was more efficient to create grand scale systems
• Bureaucratic, large, depersonalized everything
• Seemed more efficient at first. Economies of scale.
• But seems like someone forgot to calculate in the value of strong links. That is, the kind of links that are formed in face to face transactions. The kind of links that make you feel ashamed when you default on your mortgage.
• Makes me feel like this whole big efficient society mess is just that. A mess.
• Makes me feel like not knowing your neighbor costs us a whole lot more than we might realize.
• Makes me want to move back up to Port Chester, serve on the town board, and become a foster parent.

I’m nervous about the economy.

New Years’ Resolution That My Neighbor Did NOT Make:

I resolve to stop smoking so much at seven in the morning that my secondhand smoke wakes up my neighbor ANP.

Gotta love the octogenarian set.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Mariana V. Nork

202-457-0046

DISABILITY RIGHTS LEADERS FROM NEW YORK AND CHICAGO TO RECEIVE 2008 AAPD LEADERSHIP AWARDS

Award Presentation to be Made at Annual AAPD Leadership Gala

March 5, 2008, National Building Museum, Washington, DC

WASHINGTON, DC, December 19, 2007 – The American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) has announced that a national advisory committee has selected two individuals to receive the 2008 Paul G. Hearne/AAPD Leadership Awards. Brett Eisenberg from New York, New York, a young leader whose work and influence within corporate America is helping people with disabilities to find employment, and Rahnee K. Patrick from Chicago, Illinois, a young disability rights movement organizer who is particularly passionate in working to help youth and students with disabilities, will each receive cash awards of $10,000 to further their work in the disability community.

“The disability movement needs leaders who can take our message to classrooms, to corporate boardrooms, to the streets, to our youth, to elected officials and to the media. The two individuals selected for the Hearne Award this year are breaking down barriers and building bridges in very different settings, but with common goals,” said AAPD President and CEO Andrew J, Imparato. “I commend Brett Eisenberg and Rahnee Patrick for their leadership, their creativity and their passion, and look forward to working with them to enhance the power and visibility of the disability community in the years to come.”

Brett Eisenberg is Disability Coordinator at American International Group (AIG) in Manhattan. In this capacity, he leads the corporation’s Disability Initiative programs in various areas, including recruitment and retention, corporate affairs, assistive technology, and products and services. He has created programs whereby AIG is able to focus on the disability population to better serve their needs as well as the needs of AIG.

A graduate of the renowned Henry Viscardi School in Albertson, New York, Eisenberg joined AIG in 2006 as an Analyst in the Human Resources-Corporate Staffing division. He was responsible for preparing all reports regarding hiring activity and cost per hire worldwide in addition to assisting in all aspects of the budget process for five different departments.

Eisenberg serves on the AIG Corporate Diversity Council. But his extensive involvement and outreach to assist people with disabilities in finding employment goes beyond his daily work at AIG. Eisenberg contributes his time, talent and energy as a member of five Business Advisory Councils, including Abilities, Inc., Just One Break, Inc. (JOB), and Fedcap. In addition, he founded and now directs the New York chapter of the Osteogenesis Imperfecta Foundation.

Before joining AIG and while attending college, Eisenberg worked at Merrill Lynch in various areas including Private Wealth Management, Global Philanthropy, Office of General Counsel and Litigation Department.

Eisenberg was awarded a Bachelor of Science degree in Accounting, with a concentration in Management, from Nova Southeastern University in Florida. He also attended Adelphi University and Baruch College.

Rahnee Patrick joined Access Living, a leading disability advocacy organization run by people with disabilities, in Chicago, Illinois in 2002, and since mid-2004 has been the organization’s Youth and Education Team Leader. In this capacity, she addresses equal educational access for students with disabilities in Chicago Public Schools and the holistic well being of youth with disabilities, including their self-esteem, sexual health, and the development of leadership, and self-advocacy.

Patrick came to Chicago from northern Indiana, where she was highly involved in the disability rights movement. In 1992, she was a disabled student leader for Students Together Able and Respected (STAAR) at Indiana University South Bend, where she earned her B. A. with a minor in Women’s Studies.

In 2006, Patrick organized the first national ADAPT Youth Summit, an initiative to ensure youth with disabilities use direct action tactics and to keep ADAPT alive in the next generations of disability rights.

Patrick currently serves as the co-leader of Chicago ADAPT, and is an active member of Not Dead Yet and co-founder of Feminist Response in Disability Activism (FRIDA). She is an award-winning writer and writes about issues around disability, race and women. She also is a graduate of Partners in Policymaking (1997) and the New Leadership Development Advocacy Training (1999.)

Patrick is the oldest of four children, the daughter of a Thai immigrant and a Vietnam Veteran. On Labor Day weekend 2006, she married Mike Ervin and they live in downtown Chicago.

The 2008 Paul G. Hearne/AAPD Leadership Award recipients were selected on a highly competitive basis by a national advisory committee. This program carries on the work of AAPD founder Paul Hearne, a renowned leader in the national disability community, and to realize his goal of cultivating emerging disability rights leaders.

AAPD thanks the Mitsubishi Electric America Foundation for its support of this program.

The 2008 Paul G. Hearne/AAPD Leadership Awards will be presented at the 2008 AAPD Leadership Gala, an awards ceremony and dinner, on March 5, 2008, at the National Building Museum in Washington, DC. For additional information about this event, visit the AAPD website or call AAPD at 202-457-0046 (V/TTY).

###

The American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), the country’s largest cross-disability membership organization, organizes the disability community to be a powerful voice for change – economically, politically, and socially. AAPD was founded in 1995 to help unite the diverse community of people with disabilities, including their family, friends and supporters, and to be a national voice for change in implementing the goals of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

As a preface, you should know that I hate the promiscuous bandying about of the word “democratization,” even though I have done this myself (in my most clever installation, I referred to the phenomenon of Craigslist personals circa 2004 as “the great democratizer of ass”).

Okay, so I was listening to some Democrat from Washington State talk about “the democratization of energy”, how a movement towards localized greener energy sources (hot (and cool!) geothermal action, etc.) took power away from consolidated, centralized sources, thus “democratizing power” (in both senses of the word ‘power’), which he argued was a good thing.

But doesn’t this push for localized power in contrast to what capital D Democracy is all about? Doesn’t the Democratic party like to push for money skimmed out of everyone’s hands, and a benevolent centralized government redistributing the consolidated money in a manner that the Republic has deemed equitable?

I’ll admit I’m rather naive about the technical operations of gubmint as I’m more interested in politics as (a) an academic construct (b) a game one plays at the office. So please, someone, edumacate me.

Signed,

I think I’m Libertarianish but frankly I usually vote for Democrats

What I have always loathed is the lack of customer service built in to insurance companies.  They may act like they worry about user interface and customer experience, but seriously?  If insurance was treated like every other subscription product, it would totally get an F-.

So why is this?  Attorneys General get all up in arms and protect consumers from solicitous telemarketers, fine print in junk mail, and magazine-subscription-attempts-gussied-up-with-sweepstakes-offers.  But why no rules regarding shady insurance companies who say “Oh, sorry, you didn’t fill out in this form within 90 days; nevermind that it took us 88 days to send you the form to begin with.” ?  Why no upfront disclosure that therapists are only allowed to charge $75 an hour, and anything north of that comes out the patient’s pocket and doesn’t go towards your annual deductible?  And why all the ugly-ass forms?  If I have to look at that shit I want a well-considered layout, some sans-serif fonts, and a damned soy ink for crying out loud.

So I’m pissed off!  I think we need not an Attorney General, but a General Attorney.  One with large guns, a tank, and a bayonet to place firmly in the chunky bellies of insurance companies.

But in the meantime?  I guess I’ll have to buy some of their stock.

I’ve been turning over the idea that the wheel’s exacerbated man’s downfall, that we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in had that blastedly useful device never been invented.  I’ll explain more — you can put your rebuttals into my comment box right now — but I think Marty Van Buren had it right when he was bitching about trains:

The Almighty certainly never intended that people should travel at such breakneck speed.

Damn straight, Martin!  Damn straight!

Curiously, this quotation appeared by an ad for the Discover Network within Cards & Payments magazine.  Underneath the quotation was:

Martin Van Buren, complaining about railroads traveling 15 mph, 1830

Wow, so it’s the railroad that does the actual traveling?  That’s interesting.

I’m tabling my rant against the wheel for now but expect it soon.  (Soon as I finish off this Big Mac.)