The Onion has redesigned (you heard it here last) and with it opened access to all its archives from 1996 onward, meaning some of my favorite "Point Counterpoint" columns are ripe to be read once again. They include, in no particular order:
A: Eagle Scouts B: People with extensive collections of small mirrors and inhalant cylinders C: Coke addicts
A: White lies B: The miracle of childbirth C: Debt management D: "The Argentine Peso is a rock-solid investment" E: "You're definitely the father" F: Second mortgages G: "They'll probably get a scholarship"
KanyeWestSounds: take the work of a man famous for crafting infectious beats and infamous for ineffective lyrics, strip out the beats, and replace them with airy backgrounds... that highlight the lyrics. Result: a mash-up in need of a M.A.S.H.
The modern approach to tank design with sloped armor to save weight was first applied in the T-34, then in the Panther tank and Tiger II. The Western allies did not pick up upon this philosophy until late in WWII with the American M-26 Pershing Heavy Tank. All in all, the Tiger is one of the best tanks of WWII, the problem was production. There were 40,000 Sherman Tanks produced and another 30,000 Russian T-34's produced, compared to the Tiger I's 1350 and the Tiger II's appoximately 500 produced. Clearly insurmountable odds, regardless of technological superiority. It is estimated that the 1350 Tiger I's produced, achieved a 10:1 kill ratio, knocking out an estimated 12,000 - 14,000 enemy tanks. That statistic alone testifies to the overall brilliance of the Tiger design.
Being a perfectionist is a huge impediment to success, mostly because perfectionism isn't very tolerant of extenuating circumstances. Success within a small scope and success within a much larger one are loosely correlated, but there are times when the two are at odds. Producing a far superior tank (10:1 kill ratio!?) resulted in a very detrimental outcome for the German army of WWII, because it was:
Too costly to design
Too costly to construct
A single tank which can defeat 10 will be in dire straits when matched against 20 or 30. Flooding the battlefield with cheaper and inferior units proved to be a very successful strategy for the Allies and, as the locus of national competition moved from the war room to the board room (with the latter often grandiosely nicknamed the former), a successful strategy for business as well. Shifts in style may account for part of the reason why televisions are no longer adorned with wooden exteriors, but the cost-effectiveness of plastic plays a far greater role. Even Detroit learned in the early 1980's that customers would trade off a year or two or reliability in return for lower prices.
Making products as close to perfect as humanly possible will result in an untenably expensive price point. That's why my snazzy smart phone started to malfunction in very basic ways and I had to spend 3 hours battling with Sprint to get it replaced. It's also why, now that the hard drive on my Powerbook is failing after just over a year, I expect to spend even longer battling with Apple. Not one bit of my pedantic armchair postulating, however, explains why both had to happen at the same time.
:: Do people drive more professionally in a Mercedes than a Toyota?
I will agree with Ben Stein that the workplace of today may be suffering from excess casualness, though I take issue with his insistence (a call to yarns?) that all men of business wear a suit. My own personal pet peeve has always been the atrocious spelling, syntax, and grammar of the modern workforce, especially in e-mails, but I suspect the ability to communicate in writing with someone several thousand miles away is somewhat more vital than the unseen sender's choice of dress. I disagree with the logic that dressing better means working better. If you're not versatile or trustworthy enough to perform your duties under a variety of conditions, I consider that malfunction of discipline, not wardrobe. There is no panacea for being unprofessional, though I'm sure Mr. Stein would argue that slipping on a BrooksEase 3-button* just makes a man feel like capitalizing proper nouns. Some of the stories I hear from friends at the investment banks whose employees he says "dress beautifully" point to the contrary.
Drawing a connection between attire and mentality works against you as well. I hear those in suits complaining about being pigeon-holed when walking into a bar. I agree with them: I don't think wearing a suit makes you a "suit", and I even think the word's co-optation as an epithet is unfair at best and classist at worst, but you can't have it both ways. The argument that one should wear a suit to affect others' perception cannot be espoused when convenient and abandoned when deleterious. You should not expect art gallery patrons to withhold the judgment you expect from business associates**.
A dose of pragmatism, that cornerstone of American industry, is in order. A business needs to service its customers. If you have clients like Mr. Stein, or can't tell ahead of time whether he or she would prefer you to be over or under-dressed, dress formally. If your company interacts with anyone (e.g. stodgy external partners) who will help you service your clientele and expects a certain level of sartorial pomp, dress formally. In absence of these or other common-sense needs, wear ass-less chaps and a Speedo for all I care, so long as it makes you more productive.
Furthermore, I would like to point out that Mr. Stein's repeated preference for Brooks Brothers is, to resume the automotive analogy from this post's title, not unlike an antiquated preference for high-end Buicks. They are reliable and appropriate, but neither are what they were back during the Nixon administration** when I suspect this opinion piece would have been more appropriate.
* I am making the risky presumption here that Ben Stein would approve of the relatively recent shift in popularity of the 3-button suit jacket over the 2-button. A less risky presumption is that he would condone the movement from double to single-breasted jackets over the past ~100 years.
** I'm not referring to TW or MT or anyone in particular here - most suit-wearers I know stick with one argument (suits influence perception, there are benefits and drawbacks) or the other (suits are a quirky necessity and signal very little). I have though heard antithetical positions ("you need a suit to project certain qualities" followed by "why do people assume certain qualities about me just because I'm wearing a suit?") from single pairs of lips and I just don't see how they reconcile it.
*** This specific reference is a low blow on my part, serving mostly to bring up the anecdote herewith about Ben Stein openly weeping when Nixon announced his resignation.
I got to be an extra in a music video for The Rogers Sisters yesterday. Spending eleven hours as an extra provides much time for photo-taking... which seems to be all I'm doing with this site lately. I shall change that soon, I promise.
Eight years ago, six of us canoed down the Green River outside of Moab, Utah. It was senior year of high school; times called for a heady and headstrong wilderness adventure.
This past weekend three of us reunited with four new river riders to tame Labyrinth Canyon once again in celebration of Sam's impending marital shackles.
No matter what the occasion, the trip is highly recommended, as I hope these pictures will demonstrate.
Empty bedroom in East Village apartment seeks someone to keep it company. Bedroom is a Gemini, likes long walks on the beach, and has a strong fear of commitment. As such, bedroom is only willing to share itself with that special someone until the end of the month. Spread the word.
morland at nameofthisdomain .org
(nameofthisdomain = "theoretic", natch)
