MEandering - Work

Oh Dear Me!

nospam@example.com (Annie Gabston-Howell) — Thu, 28 May 2009 18:18:03 -0600

I seem to have been so traumatized by the Dashle disappointment that I completely forgot this page for awhile. (Either that or Annie Gabhow, running around Toontown, took up the attention that would have otherwise been directed here.)

However it happened, I have completely neglected all two (maybe even three) of my readers for these many months and I extend my sincerest apologies for doing so.

Apology out of the way, I would like to direct your attention to the Civil Politics page and pledge. If you read this far, you can read it for yourself without any assistance from me. I admit that, other than the fun of watching the numbers grow, I have no real interest in whether you take the pledge in so public a manner.

We, if we are ever going to be an "adult" society, need to become a society that can discuss issues intelligently. Take the pledge. In public, for the sake of my enjoyment. In private, for the sake of our nation.

Common Sense

nospam@example.com (Annie Gabston-Howell) — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:08:32 -0700

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom." --Thomas Paine--

I am following, with some fascination, the whole "Is waterboarding torture?" thing playing out in the news and on the Internet. It used to be torture. It may or may not be torture now. Somehow, there stopped being a simple answer around the time we-the-people decided that torture is illegal in the United States.

The statement now, from those who have used waterboarding, plan to use waterboarding in the future, or just want to keep their options open is apparently, "Torture is illegal but waterboarding is not torture, therefore waterboarding is legal."

It is interesting how true Mr. Paine's words continue to be. A person in power wanted the freedom to do as he pleased. People who worked for him, although paid from the taxpayer's purses, told the boss that he could do what he wanted. Years of being allowed to ignore an inconvenient law has given the habit the appearance of being right. The 'superficial appearance' has lead to the public revelation of what was previously only suspected.

Now we get to endure the campaign to convince we-the-people--who really can read and who really do sometimes think about what we read--that what we have read does not actually say what we think it says. It is, quite clearly, Mr. Paine's "formidable outcry in defense of custom" as if they were following a script.

I would like, someday, to see a different script read. Instead of a spin-campaign when government strays from the path of righteousness, how about full-disclosure and a simple statement that says, "We apologize. We were wrong. We will do everything in our power to prevent anything like this from ever happening again."

It would be a start.

True Confession

nospam@example.com (Annie Gabston-Howell) — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:14:19 -0700

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.*

I implied, in my last post, that if enough of you purchased your fair share of NOTHING, that I would quit my day job. The more I consider that as an actual course of action, the less inclined I feel to properly promote my BUY NOTHING NOW campaign. I officially confess, here and now, that even after you buy several hundred billion units of NOTHING, thereby making Bill Gates incredibly jealous and myself the richest person in the world, I will, almost certainly, keep trotting off to work each morning.

It is not only that I like my day job. I do, but I am certain that, given enough money and the time to explore, I could find something that I like as well that does not require the effort of leaving my family each day.

It is a case of believing in the Constitution and believing that, if "We the People" really think the effort of forming a "more perfect Union" is worthwhile, then we need to work on every part, including the "promote the general Welfare" bit and we should nudge those people--like me--who honestly enjoy bureaucracy into the places where true bureaucrats are needed.

In spite what you see/hear/read, most public servants put our hearts into doing the best we can to act as the country's hand in support of the people's will and the people's need.

My little bit of service is performed for the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services. We serve the needy and the very, very needy. We, for the most part, do it extremely well given the limits set for us by the rest of "We the People." We have had our unbureaucratic moments over the years, where a problem ended up discussed in a news article or two before we noticed and made corrections. We have had a few personnel issues turn into court cases because we did not take them seriously soon enough. We have had a few issues, but mostly, we have gone to work each day, completed an incredible amount of work and helped a huge number of people.

My day job is not perfect. It is, however, one of the many necessary ones if "We the People" want to live in a United States of America where the Constitution applies to everyone.

My day job makes the world a slightly better place. Does yours?

*THE PREAMBLE

Click for larger image

Last of the bureaucrats...

nospam@example.com (Annie Gabston-Howell) — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 06:19:27 -0600

bureaucracy [(byoo-rok-ruh-see)]*

A formal, hierarchical organization with many levels in which tasks,
responsibilities, and authority are delegated among individuals,
offices, or departments, held together by a central administration.
According to many sociologists and anthropologists, the development of
bureaucratic organizations is necessary for the emergence of any modern
civilization.

Am I the last Los Angeles County employee who sees the value of a properly working bureaucracy? It's supposed to be a government of desks, where the occupant of each desk knows their job and has the responsibility of doing it at least competently. The jobs of some desk occupants is to supervise the work of others.

It is supposed to get the work of the government done, no matter who sits in the elective chairs. Elected representatives of the government come and go, but Civil Servants remain. We, the desk holders, are supposed to get our desks because of proven merit, keep them through continued competency, and promote to bigger, better desks only through ability.

We aren't supposed to be interesting enough to write about in newspapers. We're supposed to just plod along, keeping the wheels of government turning.

FEMA, the Justice Department, MLK, and how many other, supposed bureaucracies, have been in the papers over the past few years? Very exciting stuff. Scandals to read about for days, weeks or months at a time, with new juicy details slowly revealed with each new article detailing how someone has suffered because a government body failed to do what it was supposed to do.

The story that doesn't ever seem to get written is the one about low-level bureaucrat A who was given an order that went against the responsibilities of his/her desk and who said, "I'm sorry, rule so-and-so forbids me from following that order." Nobody ever knows enough about A to wonder why he/she never seems to get a bigger, better desk.

The story that doesn't ever seem to merit attention is the one about low-level bureaucrat B who was given an order that went against the responsibilities of his/her desk and who agreed to follow it because the person giving it was in a higher position in the bureaucracy and who got promoted for something other than merit.

The story that we often see written is about incompetent bureaucrats. Somehow, nobody ever writes about the failures that had to have taken place before the incompetent did something, or failed to do something, interesting enough to write about.

MLK hospital, or medical center or whatever it is nowadays, is the thing on my mind at the moment. Recently, a woman died after repeatedly begging hospital staff for assistance. She died during the process of being arrested. The nurse who refused treatment resigned, not after the incident, but after the incident hit the papers.

I'm wondering about the people who didn't resign. What about all the other employees, of whatever rank, who walked through and didn't care enough to call someone higher up to complain about what was happening? Were they worried that, if they upset someone important, their own next promotion might be in jeapardy? Was it easier to turn a blind eye to the lady on the floor than to tell someone important that a problem existed.

Almost every article mentions the janitor who cleaned the floor around the lady as if she was simply another piece of furniture. Why didn't he complain? Why would a custodian, hired an promoted through merit, allow something so unsanitary as a mortally-ill human being to lie in the midst of his work area? Shouldn't he have gone running to his supervisor to complain? Even if he completely lacked any ability to care about her as a fellow human in need of assistance, wouldn't he want to do his job properly? If he were a merit employee, he might, if promotions actually depended on merit rather than being liked or not making waves. I tend to doubt that he actually is a merit employee. Most of the custodial staff nowadays are contracted. Supposedly it's cheaper to pay a company to hire people to clean County buildings than it is to simply hire people to clean County buildings.

The dictionary definition above claims that some scientists say that you need bureaucracy in order for modern civilization to emerge. As a low-level bureaucrat, trying to manage my desk in the best way possible, who reads far too many news articles, I find myself in agreement and worried about the fall of modern civilization.

*bureaucracy. (n.d.). The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Retrieved June 14, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: