I gotta tell you, the education system in America turns out some real dim bulbs.
I wrote a lengthy bit about communications as a key to surviving an IT disaster, which in many ways was a written version of the session I delivered at the MacIT conference at Macworld Expo last month. I tackle the stereotype of geeks as poor communicators, and lay out a strategy for getting IT departments into the communication habit. The stunning revelation that lead me down this road is a conclusion I came to when discussing an outage with a “layperson”… that is a user of technology rather than a maintainer of it. To him awareness was more important than downtime. Downtime didn’t bother him so much, so long as he was kept informed of what was going on, why, and when things would be back up. Forewarning would be even better. His downtime came about during a datacenter migration. A light bulb went off over my head, as I had successfully pulled off more than one datacenter migration within the past few years. Did everything go perfectly? Of course not, but the difference was that I put a huge emphasis on communication with our customers way before, before, during, and after the moves. I’m not some IT genius by any stretch of the imagination, and I’m not the first to use this tool effectively. It just seems that most IT professionals forget this critical part of their management strategy.
Anyway, for the terminally curious, the series is linked below. My editor wisely split it into two parts.
I’m a compulsive reader. My whole life I’ve rarely let much time go by without some book as my constant companion. I try to keep my website here in sync with what I’m reading, but I’ve failed miserably over the last year. I think two books were listed the whole year, while I likely plowed through 4x that number. Right now it still lists “Fiasco“… which was an excellent read. I’ve been through a couple of other books since – I just forgot to update my site here. So in penance, here are a few mini-reviews of stuff I’ve read of late. I will update the site soon with the book I am *actually* reading at the moment.
One of the most profound books I read this past year was “A Nation Of Enemies” about Chile under Pinochet. I have a partially written essay about it stashed away in my “drafts” database, so you’ll have to wait for that.
“The Looming Tower” is a fascinating read concerning just about everything we know about Al Qaeda, right up to 9/11. It’s origins in Eqyptian Islamic thought, the principle players, their lives, their philosophies, their methodologies, etc. Right alongside that is a study of the intelligence community, specifically the CIA & FBI, and their continual stumbling over each other due to their basic, fundamental differences of philosophy. The CIA (subject of the book I’m reading now) had always been externally facing and saw the world as a whole, and understood how US Law was irrelevant in many respects in remote places of the world. I may or may not agree with that stance, but the book does detail how the CIA solution to Al Qaeda was to just kill it’s leadership. This was attempted a few times under the Clinton administration, but did not succeed. It was stopped on all but one occasion by the FBI, whose “law & order” mentality conflicted deeply with the CIA’s “kill ’em” plan of action. The FBI wanted to prosecute and punish, which of course requires evidence, due process, etc. They created elaborate schemes to capture bin Laden and extradite him to stand trial for the embassy bombings and the USS Cole. The delays, along with an administration change lead to neither happening. The events of September 11, 2001 therefore were not really a surprise to those in the intelligence community. They knew who it was, why, and in a lot of ways what and when it was going to happen. In hindsight perhaps the CIA’s option would have been a lot more effective and less expensive, but then again we would have been enjoying another decade of peace and prosperity had they did what the CIA suggested.
That leads us to “Fiasco”. To those that feel that the Bush Administration was a united front concerning Iraq, this book contrasts that sharply. On the one side you have the Department of Defense (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et. al.) + Cheney, forging ahead with rosy projections – minimal troop commitments, self-funding effort through oil revenues, “They’ll greet us as liberators!” and PowerPoint based sales pitches. On the other hand you have the State Department asking tough questions … and getting no answers… from anyone. The Military of course does what the American military does best, Logistics… all the while ignoring Strategy, Intelligence, Counterinsurgency, post-war infrastructure, sealing the borders, not to mention exit strategies. They assumed the State Department had all that stuff worked out. What resulted was of course, a Fiasco. A fascinating read, I highly recommend it.
I’ve also read the classic text “This Kind of War” by T. R. Fehrenbach, which covers the Korean War. Fehrenbach is a blunt, plain spoken man with a keen awareness of Military History. Korea is a largely forgotten conflict but it set the precedent for post-atomic ground wars, both politically and militarily. An excellent read though do not expect a coolly detached historian’s view. An interesting aspect of reading this book for me is firing up Google Earth and having a look at the actual terrain being described. I wholeheartedly suggest anyone reading a book about any sort of military conflict do this simple thing. Terrain is a significant part of how battle is played out, and seeing the relief (Korea is an exceptionally hilly place) truly puts a lot in perspective. The simplistic map in the book of “The Gauntlet” run by the 2nd Division on the Sunch’on – Kunu-ri Road, November 30th 1950 is what lead me to look at the actual terrain. From that moment I was hooked.
At the moment I’m reading my Xmas gift from John Welch (Thanks John!), I’ll try to summarize it once I’m done.
My family decided that we’d all go to the movies this weekend, so we rolled into Stanwood and hit the first show of the day on Saturday. Nick, being 14, wanted to see Meet The Spartans. Sue, being a chick, wanted to see the chickflick 27 Dresses. Chris & I, being men, wanted nothing to do with either, so we chose Cloverfield. I bought four tickets for three movies and we split up after walking in. Not being a TV watcher, I knew nothing about Cloverfield before I entered beyond two things:
I love monster movies. I saw John Carpenter’s The Thing and the original Alien when I was a teenager and they primed my brain for the whole monster movie genre.
However, I hate the whole shaky cam style of filming. It is distracting beyond belief. I have tried to watch a few things done this way, and it has completely turned me off. The new version of Battlestar Galactica is a great example – the camera wobbles and wanders to the point of distraction. I watched one or two episodes and never went back. I figured if Cloverfield drove me similarly nuts that I’d walk over and join Nick at his movie.
It was fun to sit down in front of a movie I knew nothing about, and just let it happen with no expectations. I could not have picked a better movie for this situation.
If you haven’t seen it, and don’t wish to be spoiled, do NOT click “more”…. otherwise click to continue.
Continue reading “Movie Review: “Cloverfield””