Democracy is the art of running the circus from the monkey cage

The title of this piece is a quote from fellow curmudgeon HL Mencken. Although he died over half a century ago, his jaundiced view of politics seems just as relevant today. The current contest to be elected President, although in its' early stages, is a prime example of this.
With all of the people running for the Republican nomination, everyone is wanting attention, and is saying whatever they need to in order to get it. The recent debate was reminiscent of a dysfunctional family Thanksgiving dinner, with the adult table and the children's' table. Although I chose not to watch the entire debate, the news clips clearly communicated the substance (not much) and the entertainment value of the event.
Will the future debates that are planned have any substance? While I have my doubts, the field will likely narrow as some of the lesser-known candidates fade into obscurity where they belong and drop out. If enough do this, the children's table will go away. In the end, we may be left with three or four candidates, although the way polls change, it's hard to know for sure who they will ultimately be. In the last campaign cycle, Herman Cain was flying high at the top of the polls for awhile, and faded quickly. Just about anything is possible. Pundits say that Donald Trump will eventually fade, but his bombast and total aversion to etiquette in the meantime is priceless.
For the  Democrats, you have Hillary, Bernie, and former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley.  Hillary has the baggage of being associated with the sometimes-sleazy Clinton Political Machine, Bernie is a nice guy who is totally ineffectual as a legislator, and O'Malley is just not doing or saying anything to get any attention. Would any of them make an effective President? It is hard to imagine.
Right now, the monkey cage is crowded and most of the inhabitants are doing little more than throwing poop at each other. While entertaining, it hardly instills confidence in any of them. Hopefully, as the cage becomes less crowded, the remaining candidates will do a better job of convincing you that they deserve your vote.
Then again, maybe not, but that's democracy.

Trump: He had an asshole transplant, but it rejected him

The part of the title about a transplant comes from the punch line of an old Monty Python joke. While the Pythons were referring to Richard Nixon, it could equally be applied to Donald Trump. As the (by several standard deviations) most colorful presidential candidate, I look forward, usually in amazement, to what he will say next.
For example, he recently made the boast that he would build a fence at the southern border and "make Mexico pay for it". Really? I would like to see the reaction of the President of Mexico when Trump sends him the bill. If it  were me, it would go right into the recycle container. The Mexican President's reaction might be different, but I doubt it involves getting out his checkbook.
A few days back, he gave out Lindsey Graham's personal cell phone number at a political rally. If he thinks that something this crass is perfectly OK to do and demonstrates sound judgment, is this the man you want to trust with the nuclear codes?
I was especially amused when he described Hillary Clinton as the "absolute worst Secretary of State in the history of the country". What he seems to have forgotten is that he donated to Clinton's political campaign when she ran for Senator from New York. One has to wonder: Is he lying now or did he just have terrible judgment back then when he made the donation? I am sure it would not be a question to which he would respond gracefully.
In today's news, Trump has "banned" the Des Moines Register from covering his political events because he became piqued at one of their editorials when they suggested that he was a blowhard and should drop out of the presidential race. If you think about it, this is pretty much empty rhetoric. Nothing would stop a reporter (minus cameras and other bulky equipment) from walking in with the rest of the crowd, observing and reporting. It just goes to show he has a pretty thin skin for anyone who uses the same approach toward him that he uses toward others.
While you may have surmised that I would never vote for Donald Trump for anything, I sincerely hope that this transplant recipient stays in the presidential race purely for the entertainment value. He makes pretty much anyone else look good.

Donald Trump: Hair or Helmet?

One of my current forms of entertainment is listening to Donald Trump on television. It's hard to take him seriously. He comes across as arrogant, bombastic, and has a worldview that can best be described as "wingnut".
When one watches "The Donald" spouting off, it is hard for your attention not to be drawn to his hair. As one who shaves his head, I cannot profess to be an expert on hairstyles, but his is one that I find hard to believe there to be anything natural about it.
A parallel to this goes back to my youth when, as a teenager, I worked in a small hospital in Pennsylvania. The Administrator  was a woman who never went to college, but her career took her from passing out meal trays to patients to being Administrator of the hospital. The rumor that she had been the mistress of the Chief of Surgery may have contributed to her phenomenal rise, but that's a story for another time.
A defining feature of this woman was her blond hair. It struck me that it always looked exactly the same and there was never a single hair out of place. Sometimes, my imagination can be quite entertaining, and I used to fantasize that she was actually completely bald and that her hair was actually a helmet that came off every night and went onto a stand next to her bed. Fast forward 40+ years to today, and my  mind takes me in the same direction with Trump.
Take a look at The Donald. Hair or Helmet? I might be mistaken, but perhaps not. You decide.

I've had a wonderful time, but this wasn't it

I recently went to my doctor's office because I had been experiencing an increase in shortness of breath (I have long-standing lung problems) and occasional pressure in my chest.
The Physician Assistant who examined me decided he wanted to refer me for a "stress-echo" test. Back in 1980, I worked in Cardiology doing stress tests, so I was familiar with that part of it, but they did not do stress-echos back then. Turns out it is a combination of a stress test and an echocardiogram.
I am not addicted to exercise, and the fact that I get short of breath very easily did not give me confidence that things were going to end well. On the bright side, at least it got me out of work early.
I arrived at the Cardiology Clinic, signed in, and sat down in the waiting room. While I was killing time reading work emails on my phone, the fire alarm went off, and everyone needed to evacuate the building. We waited outside for about 20 minutes, then were allowed back into the building. I sat back down but, a few minutes later, the fire alarms went off again and everyone again exited the building. The fire department was still there, decided that there was a defect with the fire alarm, and allowed everyone back into the building.
There were three staff in the room to do the test. The Cardiac Tech (Jennie) got me connected to the wireless EKG equipment. The Echo Tech (Tiffany) operated the ultrasound equipment to test before and after the stress test. The nurse (Joy) monitored the high tech readout on the screen while I was on the treadmill. If I were being executed by lethal injection, I could not have asked for a more delightful group for the occasion.
In a stress test, you start walking on a treadmill and, every three minutes, it increases in speed and elevation. Surprisingly, I made it through the first two stages and started the third, although my legs felt like someone was stabbing them and I was struggling to breathe . If I had any pressure in my chest, I didn't notice it because of the struggle to breathe. I gave up, got back on the stretcher, and Tiffany did her thing with the ultrasound machine while I struggled to breath.
I have to thank the late Groucho Marx for the title of this piece, it was perfect for the occasion. While I wouldn't wish a stress echo upon anyone, the three ladies provided a positive aspect to an otherwise near-death experience. Thank you, Groucho, for finding the words to express my sentiments.

Trying to make things work in government is like trying to sew a button on a custard pie

The title of this piece is from the late Admiral Hyman Rickover. Admiral Rickover headed the efforts of the United States Navy to design and build nuclear-powered warships, and was intimately familiar with the dysfunction of the United States Government.
Examples of governmental dysfunction are countless, but among them:
- The IRS (is there a single human being on this planet that actually understands the Tax Code?)
- Congressmen introducing bills that are over 1000 pages long (Does anyone actually read them?)
- The military procurement system (Some items take so long to develop that they are obsolete by the time the military gets them.)
- The Veterans Administration System (The recent scandal involving false records of appointments to show they were doing better then they actually were says it all.)
- The Secret Service(They used to be good.)
All organizations have dysfunction to one degree or another, and these same organizations no doubt have a lot of good and competent people. Good people doing their jobs competently is what we expect, and the screw-ups should be invisible to the public. Taken as a whole, our government accomplishes a lot and delivers a lot of service. Due to its' staggering size, though, the waste and incompetence can appear to be staggering. Unfortunately, the system has evolved into something that can probably never be fixed (we probably couldn't even agree on what "fixed" is.)
Rickover had a strong personality and high expectations, and was able to be successful more often than not. If he could see us today, he would probably be thinking that the button slid completely off the pie.

You can get by with charm for about 15 minutes; after that, you'd better know something

The title of this piece was some sage advice shared with me by Betty, one of my peers, who worked with me at a large (15,000 employees) hospital in Pennsylvania many years ago. Betty was the manager of the Emergency Departments at the two campuses, while I managed the three psychiatric units.
In our nursing management group (our official job title was Director of Patient Care Services), Betty was a leader. While she had a doctorate in Education, you would never know it because she was more focused on doing the job competently and professionally than flaunting academic credentials. She led by example and was someone who genuinely earned your respect.
We reported to a Senior VP of Nursing and her group of Nursing Administrators. While all were academically qualified for their positions, and generally polite and professional on the surface, the Administrators seemed to often rely upon bullying and intimidation when challenged in a situation beyond their skills. Both Betty and I experienced bullying and, like many others in the nursing management group, moved on  jobs elsewhere. While the Senior VP of Nursing and her Administrators were eventually fired, an environment had been created which posed a major challenge to the nursing executive who took over (who ultimately did a fantastic job of turning things around).
Being recruited to come to Vermont, I had an opportunity to start over in a new organization. In the seven years I was there, I worked for four different Senior VPs of Nursing and three different Nursing Administrators. Nursing leadership could best be described as unstable because of the turnover, with three of the four Senior VPs of Nursing being forced out because of the institutional politics.
Of the three Nursing Administrators for whom I worked, the first two were fine, the last not so much. (My severance agreement with the hospital prohibits me from saying anything negative about the institution or its' officers, so I will omit names of both.)
This individual, while she had two Masters degrees, could best be described as "highly intelligent without a corresponding level of competence". The fact that she is also married to a chairman of a politically powerful department of the hospital would seem to go a long way to explaining how she got the job in the first place and continues to survive with apparent impunity.
While it is regrettable that people like this rise to positions of power and inflict themselves upon others, they also serve as important examples to myself and others on how not to do things. People like this are (regardless of reality) never wrong, and are feared rather than respected.
When given a choice between Betty and this unnamed individual, I will always remember Betty as a  positive role model. It is OK to say "I don't know" or to change ones' position on a subject if someone convinces you. While that other individual is still around, it is not a positive and certainly not because of practicing "you'd better know something". I guess I should thank her for the lesson she gave as well.

Sometimes a Cigar is Just a Cigar

People and situations be complicated but, as Sigmund Freud points out, not always so.
I have been in various management and leadership positions since 1986, and one of the things that has been taught in several training sessions over the years is the Myers-Briggs Scale. For those not familiar with it, it was developed about 50 years ago by two women, and consists of a questionnaire that leads to a four-letter rating or designation that shows you to be introvert vs. extrovert, thinking vs. feeling, etc.
While I do not doubt the validity of the tool, I definitely doubt its' utility in my day-to-day functioning at work or with family or friends. A psychologist I know described it as "a nice party game". I would describe it as getting in your car and driving a mile to cross the street. There is a lot of extra effort that does not need to be there for the same end result. If you had to cross a moat full of alligators to cross the street, that makes the situation more complicated, and you would do things differently, but only because you needed to in that particular situation.
In one of the trainings, I and co-workers were being encouraged to know other people's Myers-Briggs ratings in order to plan how to interact with them. While Myers-Briggs may be a useful way to teach a concept, do we really need this added complication in our relationships? One of my co-workers described a challenging individual we both know as " a douche-bag". I personally find this more helpful than knowing that person's Myers-Briggs rating.
Another revelation that came out in a recent training that I found to be validating is when a participant pointed out that, while she had one particular Myers-Briggs rating, she had to function totally differently at work in order to be successful, and the instructor conceded that this was sometimes necessary. If that is true (and it is), my question is: Why bother with Myers-Briggs?
People can be sad, angry, depressed, in an OK place, or a host of other descriptors. I find it easier and more practical to meet the person where the are at the moment. Life is complicated enough. Don't make it more so artificially.