Bloggy MacBloggerton

Of course Ars Technica gets political reporting right: POTUS 2008: Are you ready for some football? This is the same day John Stewart said almost exactly the same thing. Why does TV suck so bad? You can't blame me. If all Neilsen families watched what I watch, we would all watch America's Test Kitchen, C-SPAN[1-3], and a healthy dose of Sesame Street and Yo Gabba Gabba.

I think an interesting idea would be voting for people based literally on issues, similar to those online quizzes that answer questions such as "What religion are you?" based on your answers to several questions. I usually end up a Quaker. If we implemented my idea for electing a president, I would probably end up voting for Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich.

It seems that there is a word that keeps being used inappropriately. This is not a misuse of a word as typically happens (particularly in IT). To wit, ask different folks what "service" means.

This is a more pernicious, seemingly deliberate misuse. It is the use of "leadership" when what is truly meant is "management". Googling quickly yields several useful definitions. Essentially, it is the difference between a function and a characteristic. I can safely say that I am a mail administrator, as that is an objective measure of a function I perform. I could likewise claim that I am a good mail administrator, but that is a subject measure of, in this case, how well I do my job. If I were a bad mail administrator and were given a promotion to "Chief Excellent EmailAdministrator", would that make the mail system run better? I do believe in the strong power of names and words, hence this article, but there are limits on the power imbued through those words. One of the examples one finds when browsing google to see the difference is that "manager" is an appointment while a "leader" is informally elected through the behavior of his colleagues. Browse the link above for more examples of the difference between "manag{er|ing}" and "lead{er|ing}" and see if you can tell the difference.

I have been meaning to write about this for some time. I must say that I really admire the courage of the lawyers in Pakistan. I feel that I must be somehow ignorant of a cultural difference or interpretation of what it means to be a lawyer, as at least in America, "lawyer" has become a bizarre mix of traits. Admired for their money making ability, yet reviled for their amoral nature. Imagining the lawyers rioting in the streets over the replacement of judges is unheard of around these parts. Tort reform, possibly, but a free and independent judiciary? Inconceivable. There are no billable hours in rioting. Perhaps that's pro bono work.

Hats off to the brave fellows in Pakistan.