Sinister? At the very least, inappropriate in a democracy. And I have to say: it also seems pretty much an extension of your average organization's approach to employee management.
Sure, your foreign types have their own attitudes toward spying on citizens.
That article's author makes a point of noting that the NSA's reach made a former high-ranking Stasi officer feel "appalled." Or was the emotion jealousy?
A former victim of the Stasi says—
"When the wall fell, I wanted to see what the Stasi had on me, on the world I knew. ... A large part of what I found was nothing more than office gossip, the sort of thing people used to say around the water cooler about affairs and gripes, the sort of things that people today put in emails or texts to each other."
I also have to repeat myself in quoting the suggestion to go for a stress-relieving walk (just remember: move along; nothing to see).
To quote more of the Stasi/Homeland Security-Industrial Complex comparisons—
[the German spokeswoman for Stasi records]...noted that Stasi victims have a large advantage in finding out what was studied.
"It's easy to make information available when it was gathered by a state that no longer exists," she said.
Stefan Wolle is the curator for Berlin's East German Museum, which focuses in part on the actions of and reactions to the Stasi. What becomes clear when studying the information the organization gathered is the banality of evil: Simple pieces of everyday life are given much greater importance than they deserve when a secret organization makes the effort to gather the information.
"When the wall fell, I wanted to see what the Stasi had on me, on the world I knew," he said. "A large part of what I found was nothing more than office gossip, the sort of thing people used to say around the water cooler about affairs and gripes, the sort of things that people today put in emails or texts to each other.
"The lesson," he added, "is that when a wide net is cast, almost all of what is caught is worthless. This was the case with the Stasi. This will certainly be the case with the NSA."
... the real walking id of the Court's preposterously Janus-faced conservative faction is Justice Samuel Alito, who turns out to be not only a reliable reactionary voice on almost every issue, but a colossal dick besides.
It began with two decisions concerning the possible remedies that can be sought by employees who face racial, sexual, or some other kind of harassment in the workplace. The two decisions—Vance v. Ball State University and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar—were as bad, and as thoroughly detached from empirical reality, as they possibly could be. Especially the former. The case involved a kitchen worker at Ball State who accused a supervisor of harassing her because she was the only black person working on the staff. Spectacularly, the case turned, essentially, on who qualified as a "supervisor."
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it's far easier for a plaintiff to win a harassment case against a supervisor than fellow employees, even if the latter have been vested by upper echelons with supervisory functions. The hitch, as Ian Millhiser explains, is that the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided that only those with "the power to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline an employee" are fit to be called "supervisors."
In other words, your supervisor can't harass you, but he or she can subcontract the job of making your life a living hell to whoever wants it. However, Sam Alito, who will never have a supervisor again in his life, has no problem seeing past the problems of those of us who will. The alternative, he argued, "would make the determination of supervisor status depend on a highly case specific evaluation of numerous factors."
Which is precisely the way the world works in 99 percent of the jobs in this country these days. His extraordinarily tortured explanation—even by Supreme Court standards—continued.
"In such cases, the victims will be able to prevail simply by showing that the employer was negligent in permitting this harassment to occur," he said.
I think we can all agree that this is a very interesting concept of the word "simply," which does not carry the same meaning in the world without supervisors as it does in the world the rest of us inhabit. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, and seems to be familiar, at least, with the fact that we don't all work as justices of the United States Supreme Court.
Justice Ginsburg's dissent was Alito's cue: start the attention-getting histrionics.
"Scalia is simply the court jester," Pierce concludes. "Alito is the king of dicks, the last and lasting vengeance of George W. Bush."
In my little corner of the work world, the Morning Huddle theme of the week is, Don't Worry.
Helpful tips are offered; "Creating a playlist of different music types can be a stress reliever," for one.
Or, "go for a walk."
Need one add: if you do go for that walk, just remember to move along; there's nothing to see here.
The Court struck down DOMA Section 3: federal government non-recognition of marriages performed in states that recognize them. Remaining sections don't touch state laws against same-sex unions; where those are still on the books, further cases will be on state levels in the coming years.
Kim addressed grass roots activism as the key to having won this one. The loss in the Prop 8 election pushed people to come forward, first in California. Then Minnesota, Maine, Maryland used the legislative process. These successes have created a public perception that history is going only one way (and Justice Kennedy wanted to be on right side). Kim notes, too, that Edith Windsor's moving fight was against an easily understood injustice.
It didn't hurt that plenty of large corporations were on board.
But the shift in public attitudes, especially among youth, has produced a clear majority in surprisingly few years. Seder says the effect of popular culture can't be underestimated, with TV shows—"Ellen"; "Will and Grace"—key to the public's evolution in seeing gays as folks next door. Kim noted that once marriage became a reality, the public realized it did them no harm—even in Iowa, where people have come to accept and even be proud of their state's equal protection.
In the context of the previous day's knife stuck into the VRA and Seder's question about whether marriage equality activism might branch out to other issues, Kim sees "a spark of social justice this whole movement has ignited." He believes there is heightened awareness, including of the threat to minority voting rights, and an understanding that gay issues include the same social and economic justice issues affecting the rest of the country.
One also has to agree with Seder: it's stunning to see this decision and remember that it was only in 2004 that fear of gay marriage was the GOP's get out the vote strategy.
But she, the colleagues who stood with her, and those people in the gallery are a powerful reminder of those who carry on these fights, despite the usual lack of a spotlight.
Sam Seder's conversation with Ari Berman is very useful, on the GOP's getting the cops out of the way while stepping up voter suppression. Discriminatory redistricting and voter ID laws, says Berman, have proved the need for enforcing Section 5 enforcement, and if there is any law the Court should support, it's one that Congress has re-authorized again and again. This decision only points to the hypocrisy, Seder says, of the Court's pretense of always wanting to "defer to the legislature": here the Court has destroyed the legislature's work. The finding is on no constitutional grounds, but claims of "an outdated formula," and that "fact finders are finding the fact of racism wrongly."
Seder notes the conservatives perceive the Voting Rights Act "as punishment, not a mechanism to ensure justice... they see this as some kind of reparations, instead of ensuring people are whole." Justice Ginsburg felt compelled to deliver a history lesson, says Berman, because of her colleagues who choose to believe racism is "a debt already repaid." With the burden of proving discrimination shifted onto voters, outside groups, not the federal government, will have to find the resources to pursue cases. This, says Berman, makes it "the most radical voting rights Supreme Court court decision since they upheld poll tax and literacy tests in 1903." That's not to forget the other radically anti-democratic actions of this Court, in the number of big business-friendly decisions to date, and the increase in Chamber of Commerce-brought cases it chooses to take.
Roy Edroso on yesterday's decision as filtered through the right wing media: a decision greeted by cheering "black leaders," while
...out in the world, it took Texas about 90 seconds after the ruling to move to put in voter ID laws from which the VRA can no longer protect citizens. These will require prospective black voters to spell chrysanthemum.
Somewhere a Tea Party group imminently expecting tax exempt status is preparing a suit to get SCOTUS to give Paula Deen her job back.
Racism is dead, as even the unending coverage of celebrity stories shows. Here we have a fine family—and a real Lady—that treats the help real nice.
Not that there ever was a chance of "national dialogue," or of change in other than harsher directions; Steve M is no doubt on the money with this scenario.
In very much related topics: sending an enormous warning to anyone who would investigate the ongoing domestic coup against the rule of law. As Peter Ludlow puts it—
...one might think that what we are looking at is Cointelpro 2.0—an outsourced surveillance state—but in fact it's worse. One can't help but infer that the US Department of Justice has become just another security contractor, working alongside the HBGarys and Stratfors on behalf of corporate bidders, with no sense at all for the justness of their actions; they are working to protect corporations and private security contractors and give them license to engage in disinformation campaigns against ordinary citizens and their advocacy groups. The mere fact that the FBI's senior cybersecurity advisor has recently moved to Hunton and Williams shows just how incestuous this relationship has become. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice is also using its power and force to trample on the rights of citizens like Barrett Brown who are trying to shed light on these nefarious relationships.
The Morning Huddle Theme of the Week: "Talkin' 'Bout My Generation."
De-huddled back to my desk, I search for phrases from this particular rehash of "generational workplace styles." While I can't identify the precise source being cribbed, the wording of this version from Regent "University" is quite close.
Another thing I find is that, despite beliefs on Regent's end of the political spectrum, it is corporate clichés—not Black Helicopters—with which the UN is armed. Exactly the same corporate clichés as Regent's (illustrated by celebrity photos, in the UN version).
Back to the office...
Monday: "Traditionalists (1927 - 1945)... believe in the value of hard work, loyalty, and sacrifice and have respect for rules..." Among the wisdom offered: in the old days, generations lived and worked together in families. I have to bite my tongue to keep from saying, "Tell it to the kids sent to orphanages during the Depression, when their parents couldn't support them."
The session ends with obligatory Tom Brokaw quote.
It seemed I must have nodded off and missed a day, because by Tuesday we were already on Gen X. There was much "Yay, us!" at the reading of dates (1964 – 1982). Dates that apply to all attending—except for the fossil who's a bit stuck on critical thinking.
"Gen X-ers value work-life balance, and would turn down a promotion if it's not right for them." Now that made the group squirm. They looked at each other, unsure if they had heard correctly, yet reluctant to challenge the holy writ. Even so, I heard mutters of, "turn down a promotion...?"
(When I reported this later, Clever Sister said, "For a promotion? They'd turn Granny in—to the Gestapo!")
Well, it seems our supervisor had been in such a hurry to get to Gen X that he skipped Boomers. Day 3 was his backtrack, with such out of sequence revelations as, "Boomers are hard working, competitive, had to struggle for college and careers after the war." Um... didn't there use to be cheap tuition and plenty of work (or at least for white men)...?
As the "1946 - 1964" generation is not theirs, they had nothing to say. Although the group's designated joker (and designated butt of jokes) did suggest that he might be a boomer, since the dates include 1964. "You have corns older than that!" said the [manager] boss, to much hilarity over his witticism. But the thought that Gen X also starts in 1964 did provoke speculation that generational labels may overlap. It was a real head-scratcher, as they all are so willing to believe your dates are your traits, if the text hath so decreed.
That morning's Thought of the Day: "The older generation thought nothing of getting up at 5 am to work. And the younger generation doesn't think much of it, either." The [supervisor] boss cracked himself up—30 seconds later, when the meaning of what he had read managed to sink in.
Yes, it's a very, very long week, indeed... Day 4: "Millenials grew up with multi-tasking, and want frequent feedback." This time the boss was out, so this was proclaimed by a substitute—who also objected, on the basis of her own kid's behavior. Though I would just amend this by substituting "constant feedback from peers," for anything to do with the workplace.
Resuming her reading: "Millenials expect aunotomy in the workplace..." "aunotomy"... No one heard a thing—"aunotomy" must have seemed merely a big word known to the guru of Morning Huddle.
Aside from the morning rah-rah (and knowing I am the only one of the huddled who yearns to breathe free), there are other meetings. These days, the big ones are about imminent plans for making the whole institution "paperless." It will be a dream come true, bring the Millenium, or something like that, depending on the speaker's purity of faith (or talent at parroting institutional BS).
From what I've seen so far of the plans, they will make it take much more time to achieve the same results. And there appears to be no easy way of tracking work done, following up problems discovered later, or dealing with any other big-picture needs.
But it's just part of the escalating speed of makeovers—"Do it this way"; "Now do it that way"; "It's done this other way, and has never been otherwise"—in my department as well as all other parts of the organization of which I'm aware. Following one of the pep sessions, this suddenly popped into my head—
Ho-hum... In the ongoing psychological experiment that is the workplace, this sort of thing starts to seem like just your average executive decision—
Esposito: From this day on, the official language of San Marcos will be Swedish.... In addition to that, all citizens will be required to change their underwear every half-hour. Underwear will be worn on the outside so we can check. Furthermore, all children under 16 years old are now... 16 years old!
Despite the book sales boom, this is outsourcing, not government
à la 1984.
The wealth of an entrenched corporate constituency is an overwhelming factor. Ironically though, some companies contracted under secret laws are worried about their branding, especially internationally, and now want more transparency.
Sam Seder and others have noted how the establishment is circling the wagons, as in the squawks of Thomas Friedman and David Brooks. Sam's paraphrase of Friedman's argument: "We must close down our society to protect the open society we don't have." And Sam on Brooks' "Snowden betrayed honesty" routine:
..."debate" has always been closed. The director of national intelligence lied to a senator—who knew he lied, and could do nothing about it—and Snowden betrayed open government, says Brooks... So, if you talk back to that bully, he may hit you harder next time.
As Sam (and others) have noted, Brooks' horror that someone questioned institutions comprises the contradiction of: "everybody knew this... but it's horrible he betrayed."
In discussing revelations, a focus of Sam's is Insiders vs. the rest of us; Establishment mutuality vs.lack of access by the general public.
The media's attack on the messenger is predictable, but striking. This is of a different order than any valid questions about the messenger, a Ron Paul fan who fled for freedom to... China. While there also are the gaps in Snowden's education and the position he held, as a Majority Report IM-er suggested, it may be as simple an explanation that Booz Allen had a contract and needed bodies in jobs pronto; ergo, a scenario of "the security guard knows computers."
The secrecy of the intelligence-gathering is what's been a legal Catch-22, preventing victims from having "standing" in courts.
That, and the fact that any real effort against terrorism requires police work, not vacuuming up data, regardless of how effective it is to access virtually anything.
As always, one can only speculate about Obama's role, and the degree to the usual effort for a Democrat to disprove softness is at work, versus the usual eagerness to expand executive power.
I do know that a week ago I first read "Obama appoints Rice" as his having named Condi.
"Right to a speedy trial": after three years of confinement and outright torture, Bradley Manning's trial opens, with journalist access hampered.
"Innocent until proved guilty": perhaps, but why not have DNA sampling coerced, in the meantime. With added stopped clock note: having to approve of something Scalia has done.
My Little Corner of Workplace Hell [Coming Soon...]
Jeez O Pete! Meet The Staff Special Episodes, Starring Jesus' Best Administrative Assistant J'sBAA Meets Her Leader J'sBAA: Volunteer In The War On Terra J'sBAA: Secretary Wrangler Bonus! Office Art
