MIGHT BE BUREAUCRAT

U Might B a Bureaucrat

This was first published on Brazil Times website February 16 2010 sighting different issues than recently observed in the Individual #1 administration.  Seemed worthy of reconsideration now,  given the much ballyhooed news about the “partial government shutdown” and inevitable return of furloughed employees who’d been working and/or staying home for deferred pay (often referenced by news media as “working for Free”)

The launch mechanism for this particular catharsis is the Sojourns of Sally as chronicled in recent letter to the editor of The Brazil Times published on February 1, 2010.

Seems the letter writer had her Social Security card, birth certificate, utility bills, and current driver’s license.  However, she’d been married three times and on this particular day this particular civil servant was “just doing my job” by requiring proof of marriage #3 (or was it #2?).  Don’t know anything about divorce, but apparently there is great satisfaction in burning such “proof”.

In a follow-up edition we learned the Governor’s office, the pinnacle of bureaucratic knowledge itself, advises she will need not only marriage licenses, but divorce papers.

Truly Sally has encountered the dreaded Bureaucrat Syndrome (commonly known as “B.S.”). B.S. is a worldview often found in those employed in governmental units, as well as any industry without competition (such as utility companies, certain cable providers, and a to be named later software conglomerate).

This mindset is documented in two of the best books ever written on economics, “Parkinson’s Law” and “The Law and the Profits” by Professor E. Northcote Parkinson (1890-1993).   If truth be told these are the only books on economics I’ve ever read.

The issue at hand evolves out of Parkinson’s First Law – “work expands to fill time available for its completion”.  One of Parkinson’s primary proofs is that bureaucrats, whoever employs them, inevitably fill time with irrelevant paperwork.

My personal introduction to the dreaded B.S. came back in 1964 as an insurance underwriter.  My boss told me to automatically approve any civil servant applicant.  His theory (and this in 1964) was that universally these were people with little ambition beyond the next promotion, and getting that promotion involved scrupulous following of all rules.  Civil servants, my boss assured me, simply did not take risks that could be put off onto someone else.

In my experience the most obvious way for any bureaucrat to look busy without taking risks is to make sure the paper trail leading to their promotion is immaculate.   It is irrelevant whether this involves human beings with human needs and human ignorance of bureaucratic Gnosticism.  All that matters is whatever paperwork is perceived to be required on that particular day.  If treating “civilians” this way annoys them, security can always be beefed up.

Examples of the dreaded B.S. (governmental and commercial!) are immeasurable…

    Having to go home and return with new paperwork because it “had” to be signed by me in the presence of a given civil servant comes to mind

   Needing a birth certificate on which the original State Seal could be felt also comes to mind (something about being at the bottom of a stack for 60+ years was involved).

My mother died at age 90, having been widowed five times.  At her request she was buried in a national cemetery under the name of her second husband.  Fortunately no bureaucratic careers were endangered by her interment -- I cannot imagine how we would have come up with the required paperwork if someone needed to justify eight hours on their timecard.

With this background, I propose David’s First Law of Bureaucracy:

   You Might Be A Bureaucrat If There Is Any Way To Look Busy Without Actually Risking Your Ascendancy.

David L. Lewis is an observer of and sometimes commentator on life who may be reached via e-mail at thedaddy1776@gmail.com

DON'T SAY 'YOU KNOW'

You Know

This blog was first published on Brazil Times website June 9 2009.  Since then I’ve heard a story, possibly antidotal, that the Civil War General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson would leave the room if someone said “you know” more than once.  Sometimes I’d like to do that, too, you know.

Recently there was a documentary series on area PBS stations entitled “World War II: Behind Closed Doors.”  The portrayal of Russian dictator Joseph Stalin was quite good.  Apparently Stalin smoked a pipe, which reminded me I once thought that when I got old enough I’d grow a beard and smoke a pipe.  Of course when I thought that, “old” was age thirty.   I did grow the beard (another fascinating story I’m sure), but never quite got around to the pipe thing.  It’s not only the cost of tobacco, but Kay would have killed me long ago.

The thing about smoking a pipe, as the portrayal of Stalin demonstrated, is that having to re-light every few minutes gives you time to think of an answer.  As I don’t smoke a pipe I tend to give answers before taking time to think about it.  Surely I’m not the only person on earth who has this problem.

Talking before thinking leads to “mental crutches.”  These crutches, used too often as they are, can get to be very irritating.  I recently saw a list of 10 of the Most Irritating Phrases in English.

It’s a good enough list as lists go, but it missed the obvious:  You Know.

The reader (and editor) will note this phrase is included here without the “?” mark.  That is because it is never clear whether the speaker has in mind an interrogative or inquisition.

My introduction to “You Know” occurred almost [now 60] years ago – the issue has been around that long.

The teacher’s name was Mr. Little.  He was about 5’4” tall and [his words] “a Negro from Boston Massachusetts”.  It was a speech class and I was the only white student.  He did mention I was the most natural speaker in the class, but that was just his opinion.

One day Mr. Little stopped someone in the middle of their talk and demanded in words I never forgot:  “Why do you say ‘you know’?  If I knew you wouldn’t have to tell me!”  He then proceeded to tell all of us how ignorant it sounded to use such mental crutches.  Think about what you are going to say first he taught us.  What he said next to his “Negro” students, which I will not attempt to repeat here and do not recall exactly, might cause a hate crime indictment today.  But, it was 1959 and there was only one white student in the class.

In this same tirade he got into the other mental crutch Mr. Little hated, “in other words”.  “Why didn’t you say it right the first time?”

Never did learn to smoke a pipe.  But over the years I’ve found it is much safer to stop and write out one’s thoughts before expressing them.  This gives time to think and re-think exactly how something should be said.  It also gives Kay time to tell me that none of it makes any sense.

In other words, sometimes I do wish I had a pipe to gnaw on before I open my mouth, you know.

David L. Lewis is an observer of and sometimes commentator on life who may be reached via e-mail at thedaddy1776@gmail.com

SPANKING MACHINES

Spanking Machine sign-ups

This blog was published on Brazil Times website in August 2014.  I am still trying to locate a Spanking Machine Store!

Our two eldest granddaughters, the original Hailee Lynn and bon bonny Britney, will all too soon be starting their sophomore year at Northview High School.  As the newest part of the back-to-school ritual they went with their father to get new laptop computers.  As it is easy to tease granddaughters, I keep bugging them about getting fitted for a “teenage girl size spanking machine”.

I was first introduced to the spanking machine by Mr. Tish, long-time custodian at Walbridge grade school in St. Louis. (Mr. Tish, would forgive me if after 60 years I’m not sure how to spell his name.)  Mt. Tish was the commander of that mysterious part of the underbelly of the school which held those huge boilers and tanks and things that made noise.  The only time we dared entered his domain (he was a formidable presence) was to use his wheelie-machine to clean blackboard erasers.

For those who may not know, blackboards used to be black, and white chalk was thereto applied.  The chalk was periodically erased with a hand-held device known as an eraser, made of felt I believe.

To get the coveted eraser-cleaning duty one had to be old enough (at least 3^rd grade), well-behaved enough, and it had to be your turn.  Best guess is this was only done a few times a year.

Mr. Tish had us convinced there was a spanking machine behind all that mysterious machinery only he could master.  And we believed him.

Somehow I do not recall ever actually seeing his enigmatic machine.  However, it was like the legendary paddle Principal Wolf had with holes bored in it to speed up its flight to your rear end, you believed in it precisely because it was never seen.

No one believes in spanking machines or paddles of any description anymore.  I think that is society’s loss.  I was never more than a C student; but I didn’t get in all that much trouble, either.  The biggest problems teachers had then was bubblegum stuck on desks, kids getting “out of hand” when she left the room, and an occasional heated playground argument (with bad words).  You see, even by the time we got to be grown-up 8^th graders there was still the specter of the spanking machine, whether we admitted belief in it or not.

Would signing up for a teenage girl size spanking machine make my granddaughters better students?  Probably not.  But the jury is not yet out on whether giving every student a laptop will return us to the days when a teacher’s greatest problem was listed as bubblegum.

David L Lewis is an observer of and sometimes commentator on life who may be reached at thedaddy1776@gmail.com 

DEAR DIANE: I OWE YOU

Dear Diane, I Owe You

As part of an on-going attempt to sort through the blogs published by the Brazil Times in times past I came onto this one dated April 23 2009.  Not sure if or where it fits in trying to pick some of my better ones, but for reasons some will understand I am sure, it made me cry.

The exact year has long passed into insignificance, but the event and location seem set in the concrete of my mind when my father said, “You can never balance the books with family.  You will always owe more than you can repay.”  I would like to hope this is the way I have lived in relationship with my family.

There may be some physical thing, some sought council or advice, something that I have knowingly withheld from any one of our children; but I don’t know what it would be.  It pains me to hear a parent say, “You owe me.”  As my father also said, my children are here by my invitation, by an act of my own will.  Ken, Nathan, Matt, Susan, Benji owe me nothing -- I could never repay the love and joy they have given me.Then there is my wife of these [now53+] years. I looked into a kitchen cabinet one day and wondered how I could ever live without Kay?  What could I possibly have, or do, or say which might begin to repay her for all she’s given me?

Balancing the books with family came to mind when my only sister, Diane, came from St. Louis to have Nathan fix her laptop computer.  Diane is a very complicated person, for which her mixed-up computer gave ample testimony.  She is twenty-two months younger than I, so neither of us has conscious memory of life without the other.  She is my friend, sometimes confidant, and always my “favorite” sister.  More than once throughout my storied life she has rescued me from difficult situations – almost all of my own making.  When my health began to go south it was Diane and her husband Bob who enabled our family to stay together and then to go forward to what became the life I very much appreciate and enjoy today.  Whatever of life I have I owe in some immeasurable degree to them.

Nathan had some problems with Diane’s computer.  She had really done a job on it; and Nathan [could not] resist a puzzle.  He worked parts of three days, and ended up ordering more RAM.  Diane had to leave to go back home so we shipped it to her.  I did give some thought to holding on to it to entice her to make another visit.

She asked how much she owes for fixing the darn thing.  Di, don’t you remember what daddy said (wasn’t it just yesterday)?  You can’t balance the books with family.  I’ll send you a bill when what you owe me exceeds all that I owe you.

Dear Diane, I owe you

Love

David

David L. Lewis is an observer of and sometimes commentator on life who may be reached via e-mail at thedaddy1776@gmail.com.

JOINING A CHURCH

Joining a Church?

This blog appeared May 14 2009 on Brazil Times website at a time when our church was going through something of a tumultuous time.  Most is still valid, but I don’t know what happened to the elder’s “covenant” or whether it applies to the current board of elders.

Recently the current board of elders at Christ Community Church made a unilateral Covenant with the people they had been asked to lead.  I take “covenant” to mean a pledge as to what kind of leaders, and what kind of men, they are going to be.  This unsolicited promise should not be thought of as a teaching or dogma of the church, but simply a statement as what to reasonably require of these particular leaders.

Overall I think it a good thing they’ve done.  Specific, personal commitments are commendable from the leaders of any group.  How much better off would be any organization, community or nation if leadership stood up and said: “This is what I am and what I am going to do, hold me to it”?

Responding in kind to such a declaration, however, is not something we tend to do very well.  Americans prefer to expect more of our leaders than of ourselves.  It is one thing to join a church or volunteer with some worthy organization as long as things are going swimmingly.  It is quite another to stick with it when we don’t appreciate immediate outcomes.  This tends to be particularly the case as regards church “membership” (with which I have some exposure).

There is often a trend to simply quit going or find some preacher somewhere else we like better.  Who knows, if more leaders would say what they were going to do up-front and stick with it, it may be more profitable to wait out their terms than to give up too soon.

My own response to our elders’ commitment took some pondering.  This is what I know (or, more precisely, what applies generally to churches and other works of God on earth):

      First, God would do a great work with His people.  This is true, at the very least, of every group in Clay County united in an attempt to do God’s work.  And, sometimes God does some very effective work using people not organized as a “church”.  With truly committed leadership our generation could really accomplish something.

     Second, a fellow really needs to know where he belongs.  The American Cancer Society does some good work, but I would not make much of a volunteer because I do not have a passion for their mission.  What a fellow (or gal) has passion for might just be a good indicator of how to be most effectively used.

     Third, if a follower, follow.  I am not a leader, but can be a decent follower. Leaders of any church voluntarily assume responsibility for the direction and spiritual maturity of their charges.  They are not, therefore, infallible; but they are responsible.  As long as they lead in agreement I will follow.

     Finally, having committed to something, commit to it.  Only God knows how many opportunities are available locally to do God’s work on earth (all with devoted leaders!).  It is easy to give up, or drift away, or get mad and leave just about Anything.  It’d be much easier for leaders to do what they said they’d do if followers have courage to stay with it -- or say why not.

Joining a church?  By my count there are 50+ reachable without leaving the county, almost all will be open Sunday for evaluation as to whether you and they together can best do God’s work on earth.

David L. Lewis is an observer of and sometimes commentator on life who may be reached via e-mail at thedaddy1776@gmail.com

MATTHEW'S WAR

Matthew’s War

This blog was published on April 9, 2012 on Brazil Times website on occasion of our #3 son “retiring” from U.S. Army and re-published here in honor of his 40-something birthday.  In the interim “Matthew’s War” has become the war of wars.

“I went to an appointment at Bethesda yesterday for diabetes care. It really put my problems in perspective when I saw at least 6 different people who were missing one or both legs or arms. One guy was actually missing both his legs and one of his arms. He rolled his wheelchair around with one good arm and a prosthetic. These people all served their country with pride, and all continued to do so as they were each in a uniform or shirt representing their respective branch of the military. I actually found myself standing at attention when they passed to do what little I could to show them the respect that they have earned from their own sacrifice.” (WO2 Matthew David Lewis, United States Army, retired).

It has been relayed to me that one of our five children once said, “Everyone knows Matt is daddy’s favorite; but nobody minds, because Matt is everyone’s favorite.”

I’m not sure it is entirely true that he’s my favorite, although Matthew did once teach me which of our five children is my favorite – it is whichever I am with at the moment.  It is more likely that he is the child I worried about the most.  He is the least like me intellectually (that unfortunate distinction goes to Susan), for Matthew has a much greater intellect than I.  Rather, I worried mostly because I saw him as the most like me emotionally.  Fortunately his intellect has largely enabled him to overcome this hindrance of heredity and environment.

He prefers to be called Matt, but I always think of him as Matthew – it is a respect the man deserves.  When he was just five I began telling him he is the very best Matthew in the whole world -- he is.  Lest he ever forget, I always tell him how proud I am of him (of course I never let on that this is true of all our children and I’ve never failed opportunity to tell them also).

I was extra proud when he joined the Army, now he had a direction.  It might not be a life direction, time would tell, but he was going somewhere. As always with Matthew he rose quickly wherever men saw his ability, and was recruited into the Warrant Officer program.

He has served with honor about 12 years, working on something-or-another involving satellite communications.  I have no idea what he does, but apparently if I’m hit in the head by a falling satellite I can blame Matthew.  I also know communications is the linchpin which determines any army’s endgame.

Largely because of his assignments in the Army he has never been deployed to a war zone.  My observation has been that this has made him reticent when strangers thank him for his service.  I’ve told him more than once it’s not about any one individual, that if our generation learned anything from Viet Nam it was to appreciate all those who serve our community by serving our country.  He’s learned to simply reply on behalf of all who serve, “You’re welcome”.

Last week Matthew ended active duty with the United States Army.  He can do so with pride and honor.  It may be a bit of an oxymoron, but there is no “me” in Army.  Military success comes with all doing their duty.  It is ever true: “The share of the man who stayed with the supplies is to be the same as that of him who went down to the battle.  All will share alike” (I Samuel 30.24). Or, as the long-ago poet Milton put it, “They also serve who only stand and wait.”

Unsung and little noticed my “favorite” son now enters into what may well prove the final battles, cyberspace wars.  I will not be surprised if once again men see him as a man among men, and that he easily rises to lead.  And, I will not be surprised if I am even more proud of him as he continues to fight Matthew’s war.

David L. Lewis is an observer of and sometimes commentator on life who may be reached via e-mail at theddady1776@gmail.com

THEY SHOOT SKEET

They Shoot Skeet, Don’t They?

This blog was first posted to the Brazil Times website on March 23, 2009 and is hereby dedicated to my daughter-in-the-Faith, Shotgun Rachel Jones!

Over the years it has seemed as if the Lord has led (dragged?) me down a peculiar path, exposing me to just about every type of Christian practice, belief system, and tradition.  Growing up in a conservative Protestant home, I attended Catechism class with my friends at Nativity Catholic Church.  I have been called upon to participate in very formal “high church” worship, and was once part of a Black-Pentecostal group. 

Something of the same could be said of church “socials” and other events put on by various church groups working from various motivations.  Overall, I thought I had seen it all.

Then, the Men’s Ministry of Christ Community Church announced a “Skeet Shoot.”  This was new.  This I had to see.

My experience with “weapons” is just shy of virginal (can you say that in a blog?).  My father, who would never allow a gun in the house, had three hard-and-fast rules about guns:  First, Guns are always dangerous all the time.  Second, all guns are ALWAYS loaded.  Third, Guns are always dangerous all the time.  The only time I ever actually fired a rifle was in 1962 in the Air Force.  They gave us some instruction and then marched us out to the firing range.  There we lay down next to this thing (was it an M-1?) and we shot at a target about 10 miles down range.  I don’t know whether I hit anything, that didn’t seem to be the point.  All we had to do was be sure we shot off all the “rounds” they’d put in the gun for us. [Why do you suppose they call bullets “rounds”?]

So I went Saturday to the Men’s Ministry Skeet Shoot.  They started things off, as men do, by eating. Then there was a required orientation (pretty sure it was more helpful than the Air Force’s instruction).  Then most of the men, a few sons and at least one daughter went out to the back 30 acres to shoot at some poor, defenseless thing called “Skeet”.  Everybody got fifteen tries - some of the marksmen even hit something.  For twelve years I’ve believed God has some use in mind for those 30 acres of land behind Christ Community.  Skeet Shoots may be what He had in mind, it was not in mine.

I am sure those who went to this church event for the sole purpose of firing a shotgun enjoyed themselves.  But, that was not at all what the event was about.  It was really about Christian men getting together to do something we could all enjoy, laugh about, and remember fondly  -- this in the company of men who had neither to endure “locker-room talk” nor felt necessity to be “macho”.  All could just be men who loved their Lord and therefore each other.  A good time was, therefore, had by all.

I didn’t do any shooting.  Not what I went for, anyhow (I’d heard there’d be free food).  And, it’s not that I didn’t shoot any “firearms” just because “Guns are always dangerous all the time.”  No, I simply couldn’t bring myself to see harm come to those poor defenseless Skeet things (whatever they are).

David L. Lewis is an observer of and sometimes commentator on life who may be reached via e-mail at thedaddy1776com.

CONGRESS ACTION IN INACTION

Congress -- Action in Inaction

With the new Congress starting up this week my blog on Brazil Times website of August 21, 2008 (with a little editing) seems most appropriate for the occasion.

…There has been some talk recently that Congress should/shouldn’t get back to pass/not pass some particular legislation.  What could be accomplished for good/evil seems to depend on which political party is proposing what.  It’s not clear, though, whether reassembling in Washington would be all that productive.  A nonpartisan organization called Taxpayers for Common Sense reports the 110^th Congress has passed “only” 260 laws in the session just ended [2008].  Of these new laws, seventy-four consisted of renaming post offices.  Apparently 260 (really 186) are the fewest laws imposed on an unsuspecting public within the last decade.  The question asked being “why is Congress doing so little?”  This question seems to presume that not passing laws is a bad thing.

Why would we want them to make more?  As 1930’s era humorist Will Rogers once said, “Be thankful we’re not getting all the government we’re paying for.”   Personally I think old Will would be proud of any Congress which could restrain their selves from passing a potpourri of new legislation.  And, no, I am not near old enough to remember Will Rogers

The volume of laws on the books now is simply beyond comprehension.  Whole bureaucracies are devoted to just cataloging them.  No one could possibly be aware of all of the laws that affect our daily lives.  Even lawyers have to specialize is some particular area of law, hoping they have compiled everything available on the subject.  {Tax preparation companies], too, exist solely because Congress keeps changing the rules of engagement.  Who knows, if the tax forms stopped changing for a few years somebody might figure them out.

To keep themselves busy our lawmakers in Washington do pass hundreds of Resolutions.  These are usually passed unanimously, having been read only by the sponsor’s chief of staff.  Rep. John Shimkus (R., Ill.) is quoted as saying:  “It’s probably not the best use of our time, but we have to do something.  These resolutions make it look like we’re working.”

At least passing Resolutions keeps them out of too much mischief.  Resolutions are non-binding on everyone to whom they do not apply; whereas actual laws bind every one of us -- whether we know about them or not. 

Generally speaking Resolutions don’t cost us all that much, either.  A good thing about not passing too many laws is that you can’t sneak an “Earmark” into non-existent Bills.  Earmarks, as you will recall, are expenditures of millions upon millions of our tax dollars without review or public exposure.  The most infamous in recent years being the “bridge to nowhere” proposed by an Alaskan Representative (who reportedly now has Law problems of his own).  [Note: since original blog the rules about Earmarks have changed, but not the results.]

We once had a friend named Russell Brockfeld who at the time was Minority Leader in the Missouri House of Representatives.  He voiced an idea that always seemed like one of the best policies any legislature could adopt.  Russ’s idea was that no law should be passed unless two were repealed.  This, his theory went, would someday get us back to the original Ten.

David L. Lewis is an observer of and sometimes commentator on life who may be reached via e-mail at thedaddy1776.com.

NEW YEARS MUSING

A New Years Musing

This blog was originally written at the beginning of 2011, only the years have been changed to protect the fact nothing has changed.

Entry into the year 2019 was celebrated somewhere in the world (at great expense) every hour on the hour for 24 consecutive hours.  New Years is, indeed, a good time to look to the future and wish each other well.  But surely twenty-four times is sufficient to say “Happy New Year”.

Somehow the number 2019 just doesn’t have the “ring” to it that 2018 had.  Whatever the number of the year, though, we want to see its coming as a fresh start and new beginning.  New Years Day all things seem new -- last year is no more -- anything is possible because we are starting from scratch.  “Old things have passed away; behold, all things are new” -- or so we aspire.

It just ain’t that way.  Leaving last year behind and starting from scratch does not happen no matter how spectacular the fireworks.  We started nothing new this most recent New Year’s morning.  We picked up where we left off just before the ball fell in Times Square.  The past precedes, it is what it is, we are what we were.

     Famine, pestilence, hatred and warfare continue from one end of the earth to the other.  Untold new years of American foreign policy demonstrate attempts to change what is only created problems we would have not had or known but for the improvised policy.

     The elections of the year just past are simply prelude to the next.  A new Congress meets to find left in place all the “baggage” of the old.  Again no matter what the 51% affect (if that many can be brought to agree on anything) they will be vilified by the 49% who had some other new solution in mind.

     After all the extravagance of another Christmas season and the millions expended on opulence, in 2019 the poor we have among us still and those in prison imprisoned yet.

     With all the amazing progress in medicine of the last 100 new years, life will continue to depend on the next breath taken.

New Years is, indeed, a useful time to look to the future; to wish each other well; to “turn over a new leaf” and seek new directions.  However, we do not and cannot leave the past behind, obliterated and forgotten.  As my old professor once said: "God forgives Christians and forgets our sin, but then we still live with the consequences of what we’ve done and been".

What is vital about a new year, the best any can do, is acknowledge where and who we are -- then to build something better than we did when last given a new year with which to work.  Any year which encompasses those things has a good ring to it.

Happy New Year?

David L. Lewis is an observer of and sometimes commentator on life who may be reached via e-mail at thedaddy1776@gmail.com