Bill's Notes

HR Cafe Thoughts: If I know so little about the online world ... how come my personal blog which I dashed off in my spare time has more unique backlinks than my former company's blogs and web site, with their editors cranking out blog posts and an SEO team trying to rig the results?

But what do I know?

Just for fun, let's see if we can knock HR Cafe off the top of Google. Everyone who is still reading this blog, link to this post and use the linking words "HR Cafe." Five backlinks should do it :)

OK, after six weeks of panic and one month chilling out in Florida, I have made a decision. I am going to spend 2010 building my own freelance business. I have the facilities and virtually everything I need to do so, and the money to go at least a full year. In fact, without my realizing it, I have had clients since the moment I was laid off.

I am excited about this new venture. I have two book ideas and two clients already. More details to come.

This is a test post. IndustrialBlog has moved to a new server, and this test is to see if it's working. If this had been an actual post, you would be informed of something on my mind. Thank you. The Management.

What's on my mind? Well, I worked for two weeks in mid-November as a web content/social media manager. I can confidently report that SEO content management is a morally stunted crapfest driven by integrity-lacking amateurs all chasing their own sphincters, and will ultimately cause the Internet to eat itself.

I'll be on the couch, drunk, spilling beer on my wife beater t-shirt, until the adults are back in charge.

To Chris, Paul, John, CalTechGirl, and Jim for your good words and thoughts during this difficult period. I am doing better, though my situation hasn't changed. At least I stopped panicking, which is step one.

Dear Extremely Loyal Readers,

I'm still around and kicking. Fighting for my career. Doing some freelance work that also serves as a tryout.

Also did some suck-ass freelance work where the boss who runs a chimney liner business criticized me for not knowing the meaning of the word "hearth." I accepted his criticism at the time, then looked it up this week and realized I knew the definition -- he didn't. Plus, his SEO guy told me to send out a press release that was a total fabrication. In SEO land, nothing really means anything, as long as it has links and people link to it. So I'm out of that.

I did what I thought was an extraordinary tryout for a job -- but the business owner merely thought it was good enough to get a second chance. I'm taking that second chance on principle -- but those articles I sent him were about the best I can do.

Meanwhile, some personal troubles on other fronts ... getting hammered from all sides at once. I'm ready to join the Peace Corps again and run away. Hey, it worked once :)

Best to you and yours. Cheers, Bill

My own words are coming back to haunt me. Over the years, so much advice has come out of my mouth. It was my job, after all, and I'd do it for free on off houses.

We all know it's easy to give advice. Applying it when a lot is on the line -- that's a different story. There's something at stake for me now. My lifestyle, my career, is on the line. And I have to admit, I'm afraid. I'm afraid of losing everything -- my loving girlfriend, and my house, career, sense of purpose, sense of accomplishment, pride in my work, hope for the future, my soul. Yes, I'm that afraid.

It's been so easy to give people advice:

Don't look for a job. Look for an opportunity to help build someone's business and then you'll have a job.

Conquer fear first -- if you conquer your fear only by getting what you want, you'll always be afraid that if you lose what you got, you'll be afraid again.

The real money is in B2B sales.

There is value in suffering. We're here in this life to learn to love not only when it's easy, but when it's difficult, even difficult to the point of enduring the pain of the cross.

We are not going to be entirely pleased with God's decisions either in this world or the world to come. Part of learning to love God is learning to have faith in his choices, what he permits and what he doesn't, even if it's difficult.

You shoot ducks one at a time. Don't look at the whole flock -- pick out one duck and shoot that one.

Now I wish I'd shut the hell up and just held them in their suffering and said, "I'm here. I love you. I'll be with you in this. I will walk with you the whole way and back, if that's what it takes."

Because you know what? Most of us know what to do. It's doing it when something we value is at stake ... that's the hard part. And to do it when others are depending on you, when you just want to fold up and say fuck it, and you still go out there and do things you don't want to do, just because you have to. That's real courage.

I have to tell you -- if any of you have ever a brutal career-killing layoff, and you actually survived when what was at stake was not only you, but your spouse or your children or parents ... I have a lot of respect for you.

I mean, me? I'll survive. I may lose my lifestyle, my house, my pride, even my girlfriend, but no one is really counting on me. Yes, I worry what people will think, what they'll say, what they'll tell others ... there's Bill, got laid off in his mid-40s and never really recovered. Never got married, never had children, what a waste.

And a million other things that don't have anything to do with anything important.

So that's where I'm at.

Time's still flying. I've been searching for jobs and haven't got a nibble. Not a call back. Not an email back. The closest thing I got is an offer to do something I'm not sure I can do -- selling marketing agency services.

My days have fallen into a pattern. First, I wake up in despair. Every morning, the same dark thoughts. By mid-morning I feel I can cope. Then as the day goes on, I feel better and better. By the time I go to bed, I'm happy and confident and the fear is gone. Then I wake up in despair and start over again.

If anyone knows of writing jobs, technical writing to journalism, let me know. If you know of any other opportunities, let me know. Thanks.

And of course prayers would be appreciated.

Any time you have a problem, you have three:

1. The problem itself.

2. The fear and anxiety over the problem.

3. Separating good from bad information, and discerning good advice from bad advice.

So it seems to me. I'm trying to deal with #2.

I could also use some prayers today. Take care.

Just received a notice that Chris, who has graciously hosted this blog for years, is shutting down. Thank you, Chris, for all your work.

At some point, I need to either move this blog or archive it somehow. I would prefer not to lose the posts.

I'll still post until the end ...

This morning.

Hits this one out of the park — even complains about the undermining effect of state lotteries. 'Bout time.

It talks about the corruption of financial values. That's our big issue. People want something for nothing — and to make money with money, instead of through hard work, Protestant work ethic, avoiding conspicuous consumption and materialistic attitudes, living within or below your means, distrust of debt and easy credit, planning for a rainy day, suspicious of fast money, unearned money, found, dishonestly earned or won money, and all that.

Hear, hear. Read the whole thing.

One of the strongest determinants of our worldview, and our spiritual maturity, is what we do with desire. The problem of desire is one of the most powerful motivators of religious journeys — but it is not the journey. The journey, ultimately, is of the mind to God — desiring what we are not, we seek He who is.

But there is a trap on this journey: repression of desire. This trap is so effective that it leads to people giving up, and moving the other way, and indulging desires. It creates a cycle of craving — when indulging, we crave purity; when repressing, we crave indulgence. Both religious and non-religious people are equally susceptible to this trap — the sinner who sins and then repents and then sins; the non-believer who seeks purity through food or political beliefs or physical exercise or even "pure reason." The urge, when indulging, is to purity — and that purification can easily be displaced.

So what, then, of desire? Am I hinting that as a former Buddist, happiness comes from the extinction of desire? Am I suggesting, as a Christian, that only Christ can extinguish desire? Am I arguing, nonsensically, that all desire is bad?

I'll answer the last question first. I am talking, specifically, about desires that do not satisfy. I am talking about when there is a lie mixed in with longing — that if I have this, I will be satisfied. But long term, no thing satisfies us. There are no limits — look at the miserable super-rich, with gold-plated superjumbo jets.

From here, we can take a look at the first question: I would say that as long as Buddhists are talking about craving, ultimately unfulfillable human craving, they are asking the right question. Indeed, eastern religions focus heavily on this question — too heavily, in my opinion, but they ask it. They understand the cycle of repression-and-indulgence and come up with spiritual exercises designed to break out of it.

Which leads us to the second question: Christianity. Yes, ultimately, only Christ will satisfy our hearts. But as Christians, we are not looking at a shattering enlightenment experience — Christ indicates that our path to God is the road to Calvary — in flesh, blood, sweat and tears, guided by the grace of God.

Paul, in his teaching of "grace" and "law," seems to be talking about a third alternative, and it is analogous, though not quite the same, as the eastern religions' methods. In my humble opinion, in the Christan west, the hows of the problem of sin is not adequately communicated. The teaching is all there — but it's hard to find. Among born again believers, there seems to be a conversion experience — I know Christ now, and He satisfies me. I tried that, experienced Christ, and well, lapsed pretty quickly into sin.

To re-iterate at this point — I'm talking about one of the most fundamental arguments in our cultural wars. Partisans of one side say repression is impossible, and thus indulgence (within limits) is the answer. Hugh Hefner, but also most liberals, go this way. Partisans of the other side, however, often mistake their own religious teachings and say repression is the answer.

My point: It's a false belief. Both sides are correct in their accusations and wrong on their solutions. Which is perhaps a good summary of our cultural and political climate these days.

I have also left a hole in this story — I've said that extinguishment of craving or unfulfillable desire is not the spiritual journey of Christianity. What I mean by that: It is easy to approach God with the attitude of, "God save me from this. God save me from that." While God may or may not do it (adhering to the rule of thumb that Oswald Chambers described as — God will not do for us what we can do for ourselves, nor will He permit us to do for ourselves that only He can do. Add all the necessary adjustments to that rule, such as our motivations and God's sovereignty).

Anyway, my point is that I believe that God's not just a healer; Christ is more than that, and He wishes for us more than just a solution to our human, sinful problems. With this in mind, that's why I'm saying that the problem of desire is a concern of Christ, not the fundamental one, as with many eastern religions. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if one extinguishes desire through psychological means, untrue spiritual paths, fulfilling human relationships, and human maturity, may end up taking us further away from God. The message of Christ is God's call for you to join God in a permanent relationship, a relationship we call heaven, and that goes beyond fixing up our human foibles. Just as a married couple, where one is an alcoholic, will keep building a relationship beyond one person's giving up addictive drinking. In other words, we can fall short if we don't keep pressing on.

Now, I've begged the question of the solution. Actually, there are several. One involves twice daily prayer with family and friends. But there are others: Another involves confronting three things at once — emotion, behavior and thoughts. All three act together and on each other — reinforcing one another. Any failure in any of these areas will cause a relapse into repression or indulgence. At this point, you will realize that I'm in the realm of cognitive-behavioral psychology.

Let's take a step back: Say you are repressing some desire. Cigarettes. For you to succeed, you will need to confront an erroneous thought: I need cigarettes to feel good and the next one will satisfy me. And if you give them up, you will need to confront the fear of relapsing. Any addictive, or craving, involves addressing both. Only when both the lie is exposed and the fear of giving into it again are conquered, is the battle won. At this point, you are neither repressing your desire, nor indulging it: You are "over it." The key is facing down the fear: that nagging sense that you'll slip and fall and I better not think about it. We need to address those fears head-on; we need to challenge and correct the lies, and then allow ourselves to feel the feelings and not be afraid of them.

To do this, I believe, is very person specific. I also think it's time-specific — what works now may not work. It involves, essentially, rewiring your brain by repetitively doing the right thing, not being afraid of feelings (even powerful ones), getting support, prayer that's not repression, keeping your motivation up ... things of this nature. It also seems to involve taking things slowly, one thing at a time, easy does it.

I have 21 years sober this week. I remember clearly the day I didn't need to go to AA meetings, anymore. Until this time, I needed meetings to shut off desire for 24 hours. I simply stopped fighting the desire to drink. I stopped repressing it, demanding that I must stop this, and instead allowed myself simply to feel the full desire. Probably by the grace of God, I was not afraid of it — I surrendered to it, not indulging it, not repressing it, just feeling it and not acting. I felt the desire to drink pas through me. It never came back.

But that was alcohol. For other desires, I've found myself having to repeatedly do this — but I know that as long as I don't run away and hide, and instead feel it and not act, confront the emotional and thought distortions, and sometimes engaging in some breathing exercises to facilitate the feeling passing through, that I don't have to act on it. That's what I mean by not repression or indulgence. In some cases, it has to be done frequently, but it's working. By the way, I'm not holding myself up as some kind of paragon of spiritual maturity -- I'm writing this because it's a bit of a discovery for me and I'd like to share it for those who might wonder about the same issue. In fact, there are many "desires" that I haven't yet confronted. For example, one of these days I have to use these techniques to deal with my problem of procrastination, but I'm putting that off ...

For the second time in a year, I've had to bring my computer into the shop after malware got past all my anti-virus, anti-spyware and anti-malware programs. Just got clipped for another $100+. Sick of it.

Questions:

Will getting a Mac avoid this problem?

Am I better off keeping my existing machine and using Linux? Will Quark, MS Office work well with Linux?

Is there another solution I'm not seeing?

Any suggestions would be most welcome?

Thank you. The management.

Last night's heathcare speech:

The demagogue complained about demagoguery. The demagogic party complained about demagoguery.

I wondered about how Obama's claim that he could remove hundreds of billions of waste and fraud from the Medicare/Medicaid system. Hey, don't wait for a HC bill -- you can get started on that right away.

The rest: butterflies and zebras and moonbeams and fairy tales ...

but what the hell is going on? The president gives a non-descript speech on personal responsibility and some of my friends on the right pick it apart. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?

Dear Republican Friends: The Democrats will eventually shoot themselves in the foot. In the meantime, try to look like responsible adults, so people will say, "Oh look, those folks look like adults. Let's let them back in."

Let's save our ammo for stuff we really oppose ...

Besides, when a president goes on TV to tell school children to study hard and listen to their parents and teachers, um, ... lemme put it this way: How would you react to that? Would you think that's cool?

We're conservatives. Just let shit happen and pick and choose our battles. This ain't one of 'em. Some of you are starting to sound like ... hate to say it, them nutty Democrats during the Bush Administration.

Galt's Law is proving true: The party in power is smug and arrogant; the party out of power is insane.

The thing is online: Its theme is children have a personal responsibility for their own education. An important, presidential message. Basically, it's a pep talk for children starting the school year, putting their efforts in a broader context. Good stuff.

Answering this question leads to one of two directions, at least for me. One is more of a philosophical discussion, the kind that end up inconclusive 'cuz that's just how philosophy ends up. Then there's my practical answer:
Writers are people who have readers.

Back in the day, I wrote that and a reader here proved my point by arguing with what I wrote -- he suggested -- what about the people who sock away a manuscript and it's never read in their lifetime? Duh, I thought: Once it's read, they're writers. The present changes the past. My friend had the point that writers are people who write, which would include all literate persons. Or he was pushing for more of a philosophical answer, one which would prove inconclusive.

One you get into the philosophical discussion, you get into the realm of aesthetics. Unfortunately, aesthetics are extremely difficult to talk about it. Some people can assert that Erich Segal is a typist, not a writer, as Truman Capote said, and Mr. Capote himself was a writer. And I would immediately agree. But alas, arguing it convincingly is a different story.

Now, as a professional writer, I could argue that writers are people who get paid to write. But it's a tautology. I'm a professional because I get paid. Do I stop being a professional writer once I cease getting paid? Kinda. Do I stop being a writer once I die if I have no residuals or generate no income? Or under my other standard, writers have readers, do I stop being a writer when I am no longer read?

It is a conundrum. But of all, I like the idea that writers have readers. That makes every blogger and Tweeter and commenter a writer -- and I'm OK with that definition. Unfortunately, as a writer by profession, I either need to make a distinction (adding the modifier "professional") or cease seeing writing, in a day where anyone has the potential for a worldwide audience, as anything special or unique.

I was initially excited about blogging and the democratization of the Internet and publishing. But, now, I'm feeling a little saddened by what's been lost. Imagine, if you will, that a computer was invented that could let anyone be a doctor. It would scan bodies and tell you what's wrong, and recommend prescriptions. You just punch in the info and voila -- fully demotized medical care. What would we say about professionally trained doctors? How would they feel? A sense of loss. They'd be convinced they still brought something extra to the table. That's how I feel, sometimes.

I didn't realize that my profession would get swallowed whole by the Internet. So I'm a little depressed and demoralized right now. This blog was supposed to be a fun outlet, where I could say anything I want, set against the highly disciplined (albeit creative) writing that I must do to earn my daily bread. I didn't realize that it's existence itself (not in the specific, but in general terms) would threaten my livelihood.

On a somewhat related topic, I'm starting to really hate the Internet. I'm longing for life when it didn't exist. I'm looking, in a way, for a new profession that won't involve me turning on a computer. I'm happier away from the Internet. It's a cacophony of voices. It's everyone's voice. It warps my sense of the world -- it's the mental version of the superhighway.

What I mean is this: The automobile, and the superhighway, distort our personal sense of our physical being. I see myself, for example, as a person who can shoot down to Philadelphia in an hour, or up to Scranton, or get to Florida in 14 hours. It gives me -- or us, if you will -- a false sense of our human limitations. My car breaks down, and I have a four mile walk (or bike ride) to the nearest quick mart to get milk, bread, and the like.

The Internet gives me a strangely distorting sensation of being able to access the mind of the world. Take that away, and I feel better.

I am not arguing for Luddhitism. But I am beginning to think that the Internet is incredibly distorting or warping. Maybe I'm just being too negative. Maybe I'm just missing the camaraderie of the newsroom and publishing houses, the smell and feel and finality of print. And yes, the exclusivity. Everyone thinks they have a story to tell -- and now everyone's telling it. The gatekeepers have been routed around and the gates flung open. And I feel like one of the privileged class inside losing its privileges, and saying, what about me, and my profession, in this new world?

I am still employed. But I've dedicated my life to this profession, and if it's not going away, the handwriting's on the wall ... hard-won lessons in writing are available free on the Internet, things that were analogous to trade secrets and learned from hard labor, all out there for anyone to learn. And they're learning it.

What's a writer? It's everybody now.

So Sarah Palin's stepped down as governor, for reasons that are not entirely clear. Something about deciding not to run for a second term, which in turn, means she'd be a lame duck and she didn't want to do that. Now she has some sort of plan. What worries me are two things:

1. She seems to lack the awareness that her political career is over.

2. Her political career may not be over.

If she merely quit and said she'd have enough, that she was going back to Wasilla to raise her children, write a couple of books, and maybe teach or otherwise contribute as a private citizen somewhere, that would be one thing. That's understandable. But she's not. She actually thinks she's up to something. Borderline delusional.

When Sarah Palin was first chosen, my first reaction was WTF? Then I gave her the benefit of the doubt, and listened to her. Perhaps McCain had seen something in her that I hadn't. Her introductory speech was excellent. Her speech at the convention was excellent.

About that time, I saw the "narrative" shaping up — she was clearly unqualified, but nonetheless more qualified than Obama. It highlighted The One's lack of qualifications. It was working brilliantly for about two weeks until the market crashed and brought the whole campaign down.

The problem was this (and now, in retrospect, obvious): She was a lightweight. She never could have handled Washington. She never could have handled the press. I kept hoping against hope — McCain's decision couldn't have been this stupid. I figured maybe behind the scenes, Palin had the intellectual heft and that would come out. It never came out. It's not enough to be a good person, like Sarah seemed to be. You have to be ready. She wasn't ready, and never will be. Because the intellectual heft wasn't there. She burned through her entire intellectual capital in a weekend. After that, she was just repeating herself. It was worrisome.

That doesn't mean she won't be back. She will be. Perhaps she'll find a place she's comfortable with in the public square. What that is, I don't know. I do know that she doesn't belong anywhere near the White House except as a guest.

Overall, this situation is an "own goal" for the GOP. One thing I'd like to see is for my fellow partisans to stop retrieving the ball and kicking it back into our own goal.

Time to admit that nominating Sarah Palin was an awful decision, and had the GOP won in 2008, would have been disastrous for the country. Give it up, already. It's a mistake — a harmless one because the GOP lost, but a mistake. Many on the right see that. 'Cuz it's obvious.

The key is to understand why it happened, and what we can do to prevent it from happening again. It happened because the GOP, as it sometimes does, got "too cute." It was more concerned about the perception of reality, rather than reality itself. That's the problem. Once you start "managing perception," you put the battle on the Democrats' ground. The Democrats, for the most part (except for the Blue Dogs), are almost entirely a party of perception. They are masters of illusion and self-delusion. The GOP wins when the masks slips off.

But when the GOP plays "perception" and "illusion," you create a hall of mirrors in our political debate. Nothing is as it appears. It makes it a game, and not a productive one. Because as the masks slips off Obama (and it already is — he's consuming his personal intellectual capital at a rapid rate), the answer needs to be reality, not another perception.

You see, because of our two-party system, we have a tendency to think, "If not the GOP, then the Democrats." Or "If not the Democrats, then the GOP." It's a logical fallacy. Both could be wrong.

The facts of life are conservative. Some of those facts are unpleasant. We all wish these facts were otherwise. The Democrats' problem has never been its aspirations. The problem is that government, particularly federal government, is a poor tool to achieve many of its aspirations. Not only that, what the Democrats accomplish is often the exact opposite of what they intend. The road to hell and all that ...

But the Democrats' faults don't mean we in the GOP are somehow pristine, or free from error, or admitting error. With Palin, we fucked up. Let's admit it and move on.

If 2012 is actually Obama v. Palin, we're screwed. I won't vote for either of them.

Finally, let's remember the whole "facts of life" thing. Conservatism doesn't have to be in the GOP. The Blue Dog Democrats, who are suspicious of abortion, want responsible spending, and believe in gun rights, are an excellent start.

And don't forget Obama himself. I still say there's something conservative about the guy.

The GOP will have an opportunity for a big comeback. But we need to be ready. Backing Palin will compound the error.

Recently, I read on National Review that conservatives generally support subsidies of private insurance plans. I suppose that means that if you're gonna subsidize something, subsidize the private. Um, no. That puts business and government in bed together -- exactly where they don't belong.

A second thought: This "healthcare" reform seems to really be about government management of health insurance -- which is an entirely different thing than actually providing medical care.

That is, I'm not too happy about what either party is saying right now.

Healthcare is about a $2.4 trillion industry -- that's one sixth of the economy, right? That comes out to $8,000 per person per year. That's the cost of paying all the bills. The government could do that, but it couldn't do anything else. So we've got to find another way.

I dunno enough about medical care and the industry to really figure this out -- but it seems like both parties are being cute here. I don't see real reform here. This seems too complex.

Now that I'm really thinking about it, I'm amazed it works at all.