St. Vic's Home for Unclean Ramblings

What I'd like to see in a modern Content Management System (CMS):

• At the very least, using and built around proper application of Web standards. Too many CMSs "use" [X]HTML, but don't use it well or properly (e.g. "div-itis" in the generated markup, redundant and obtrusive javascript, poor separation of presentation/styling and markup).
• Base the CMS around a deep XML application "stack." XML applications like XSL, XPath, XQuery, and XLink all provide powerful, standardized tools for accessing and modifying content at fine-granular levels.
• Build the system on top of a clean, concurrency-based system like erlang and yaws. Most XML apps (e.g. XSL) are already functional in design, so a functional language like erlang, built from the start to handle large concurrent traffic volumes in a light-weight and responsive manner, seems a good fit.

...because I just don't have the motivation to do my urgent work right now :)

Well, that's not entirely true -- one of my thoughts does partially relate to work and a major project I'm working on there.

Tagging of Javascript
A problem I currently see with javascript in [X]HTML is that the page author can't specify what the javascript is doing to or providing to the page. I posted recently about the growing importance of securing trust of sites by making "contracts" both with the browser and site visitors, and also ways to improve inclusion of javascript in pages -- I see these two things going hand-in-hand to provide a way for a page author to say why he chose to include some javascript library in a page, and what it's doing. While most end-users won't directly need this information, having it available to them would be a big plus for trust. The key advantage for this is for power users, specifically people using tools like NoScript on Firefox, who want to know if they should turn off some script or not from some host.

For example, frequently I as a NoScript user have no idea what some page is using a script for, let alone what that script's host does. Sure, some hosts are notable for their services *cough* doubleclick.net *cough* so I know if I can or cannot trust them and their scripts. But there are a lot of sites and scripts that I don't know, and relying on a site name/URL as an indicator of whether to trust a script isn't the way to go -- I as a user should be able to see some information about what the script is intended to do, what you as a site author are using it for (e.g. rich interactions, site tracking, ad delivery), and then if I trust the site which serves that script (e.g. maybe I don't trust Yahoo's widgets because they crash my browser or slow me down, but do trust Google's).

The HTML spec doesn't allow much in the way of metadata for the SCRIPT tag, which I think is a shame. It can sit in the HEAD or the BODY of a page, but you can't give it any of the core attributes that you can give to so many other tags, particularly the BODY-enclosed tags. I think using the core TITLE attribute would be useful here, but alas it's not available to us for SCRIPT.

The other option might be to use LINK in the HEAD with a REL attribute of "script" and a TITLE for the intent of that script. While technically REL="script" isn't a standard REL value, I think one could use it as-is without incurring validation problems, and a more industrious type could create a profile that defines this REL value properly for use.

So what about using both tags as a sort of microformat or idiom for enriching the page? That is:

• use LINK in the HEAD with attributes:
  • REL="script"
  • TITLE=the script's statement of intent on the page
  • HREF=the same URL for the SCRIPT tag in the BODY
• use SCRIPT as usual

That way we could provide some extra info that an "intelligent" tool could use.

Are there any other ideas and solutions out there which suit this particular concern? Quickly doing a search in google didn't reveal similar concerns or other solutions, but maybe I wasn't using the magic keywords.

An erlang Web Browser
With the recent interest in web browsers trying to solidify their user experience and security, there's been much talk about having browsers display pages in tabs with their own processes. Google Chrome is doing this, and I think Firefox and IE are looking into it as well (I don't know what Safari does off-hand). The main advantage to an end user is that if a site does something that causes problems in the browser, that site won't affect any other pages/sites loaded in the browser adversely, or the browser itself. There's also a secondary, non-obvious benefit for security, where each page/site process is effectively sandboxed in its own process and can't touch other sites/pages or their info.

Typically browsers have been written in ye olde standarde imperative languages like C, C++, and Objective-C, which in and of themselves don't handle process and thread management well natively. Often they rely explicitly on some reference to the underlying operating system or system layer for their process management, and this can introduce all sorts of issues and concerns to the program. Because of these complications, it's not hard to see why a lot of browsers -- already fairly complex applications -- haven't tried or accomplished much in the way of multi-processes for multi-site usage.

Enter erlang: a functional programming language developed by Sony-Ericsson for telephony systems. One of erlang's key values is easy and readily accessible concurrent and multi-process management. With this in mind, it raises the question: why hasn't someone tried to write a multi-process, multi-site web browser in erlang? Seems intuitively to be a good idea, and probably not too-too hard to do since erlang also has HTML and XML libraries available to it already, as well as graphical front-end libraries.

In addition, supposedly an erlang-based web server called Yaws outperforms Apache in both allowable load and speed of serving up pages -- so there seems to be precedent to building web systems with erlang with visibly improved performance.

Googling for an erlang web browser turned up nothing -- there's an opening for any adventurous and experienced soul to make one :)

In the HTML 4.01 document type definition (DTD) [http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/sgml/dtd.html], it mentions in the LINK tag section:

<!--================== The LINK Element ==================================-->
<!--
  Relationship values can be used in principle:

   a) for document specific toolbars/menus when used
      with the LINK element in document head e.g.
        start, contents, previous, next, index, end, help
   b) to link to a separate style sheet (rel=stylesheet)
   c) to make a link to a script (rel=script)
   d) by stylesheets to control how collections of
      html nodes are rendered into printed documents
   e) to make a link to a printable version of this document
      e.g. a postscript or pdf version (rel=alternate media=print)
-->

Point (c) above is the thing that interests me: being able to link to a script file via a LINK rather than through the kludgy SCRIPT+/SCRIPT which can link to or wrap. It would mean that references to scripts would be the same as references to stylesheets: STYLE only wraps an in-page style definition, but an external stylesheet goes through LINK.

I got excited, because I'd never seen LINK used in this way, and it would be awesome. However, after doing some digging, it turns out that (1) there is no established REL attribute value for scripts like in the DTD, and (2) seemingly no current browser will support this syntax. Crap.

So, browser makers and other user agent creators, along with the W3: please please PLEASE enable us to use feature (c) in the LINK tag's definition in the DTD. I'll give y'all big bear hugs if ya do, promise!

Hearing and reading grumblings from family, friends, and acquaintances regarding the various concerns about supposed "Socialist" efforts being put in place now or on the horizon, I wanted to take a step back and ask:

What would our society and economy look like if we had no socially provided services, be they federal- or state-run?

Let's start with the main targets:

• Social Security
• Medicare/Medicaid
• food stamps/WIC vouchers
• welfare/public housing
• Veterans' Administration
• bankruptcy protection
• public primary and secondary schools
• public colleges
• tax write-offs for losses and debts
• interstates and "infrastructure" [sorry, I hate that word... it's overused]
• highways and neighborhood roads
• FNMA/GNMA
• student loans
• school lunches for poor kids
• federal pensions for federal employees
• state pensions for state employees
• unemployment pay and benefits
  
• ...

What else am I forgetting? Let's make this a more complete list.

My points for bringing this up are:

• We have a lot of existing social programs that help out a lot of people in our country, including family and friends. Removing those programs in toto would cause a drastic and traumatic hit to our society and country as a whole. Removing some of them would also be bad.
• While "most" of us ["most" being defined here as the able middle and upper class youthful individuals I hear with concerns] are not in need of these services AT THIS TIME and FOR OURSELVES, they are needed or positive to those that do need them and can access them, such as seniors, those hit by rampant unemployment in their specialty sectors, the young with aspirations of bettering their and their family's situation... even aspiring entrepreneurs and businesses.

It seems to me that the programs and their intentions are not really the things at fault. I think the core of the issue really comes down to a couple things:

• Members of our government (I'm looking at you, reps) are wasteful and selfish with OUR money. The existing programs are poorly run and leak money to other programs or to those who can abuse the services. We look at the bad examples way too often -- which are the most visible, at least in our eyes -- and not at the good examples. I hypothesize that there are more good examples than bad if we tally the numbers. None of us, liberal to conservative, would say that we want a wasteful government or wasteful programs.
• We ourselves are selfish. Since the end of WWII, our country's success has become our individual success. We have not wanted except to acquire more, and we have not been asked to sacrifice or to band together in nearly the same ways or with the same gravity as in the past. While I cannot fault the drive for individual economic growth itself, I can fault the short-sighted vision that we all seem to have acquired or been taught. Seldom do we look beyond ourselves and have that sense of community that seemed to exist in the past of our country and in others. Seldom do we seem to consider that we are part of this great country and innately using its freedoms and benefits for solely our own gains, sometimes in contra to the spirit of its very founding and idealized intent to provide opportunity for all by expected contribution (monetary, civic, social, charitable, etc.).

So let's put this in better perspective for each of us. Stop, take a look around at the other citizens around you. Don't overlook those that aren't like you: the poor, the rich, the black, the white, the urban, the rural. Look at where you are and where you came from. Look at where we ALL came from and where we are. Don't be blind to the truth around and in you.

It would be great if spell checking programs were now smart enough to recognize code in a document. Then they could either not spell check it or, even better, do substring spell checking based on either camel-case detection and other forms of variable/function naming, or just looking for known substrings. I could see this being beneficial for regular text as well, where someone uses either a hyphenated or portmanteau term and one part of it could be misspelled.

Otherwise, it would be nice to be able to say as part of a document style definition that words/phrases/blocks styled in a particular way shouldn't be spell checked based on what they are intended to be.

Ranting on Twitter and Facebook this morning about a webapp that doesn't seem to work in all browsers [how 2000 of that webapp] caused me to revisit an idea I'd been wanting to write about for a while.

With the development of the Web, including a variety of threats to user agents and data as well as the beginnings of the Semantic Web with its relationships between content and sites, we have greater need for -- and ability to provide -- finer-grained information concerning from where services are served and what they do.

Sites are no longer just about content as in the "old days" of the nascent Web. Sites also tout services and associations. Because of these facets, web pages and sites should be considered to be contracts with visitors, delineating and explaining what a site offers in addition to just its content, where those additions come from, and what they provide. And they can all do this within pieces of metadata in or linked from the pages of the site.

For instance, with the popular adoption of Firefox and its various add-ons, a user can choose to block certain sites and elements, along with certain scripts from untrusted parties. However, users must rely upon their knowledge of "bad" or suspicious domains to make assumptions and guesses at what those domains provide. For example, a site associating itself with doubleclick.net probably wants to run a script or put a cookie in your browser to track your path in and out of a website. But there are plenty of other sites that do similarly, with names that seem innocuous or are simply unknown.

The W3 (w3.org) is the de facto standards body for different technologies on the Web, providing lots of information and applications useful for harnessing these bits of information across sites and apps. They provide existing standards, libraries, and applications, as well as the frameworks to build these things, which sites can make use of to improve their overall user experience and user trust.

For example, W3 created the P3P specification (http://www.w3.org/TR/P3P/) to give sites and webapps the ability to tell users how they treat privacy of information on the site. Even Microsoft's Internet Explorer (IE) made use of this specification, but few sites did and do. Perhaps it's because of the nature of this particular specification -- cumbersome semantics and structure -- that led to its low current adoption, but the fact is that it does exist and with the rise of XML and Semantic Web technologies, P3P could be a boon to sites wanting to ensure and explicitly state their trust. Plus, that would be a good service for them to do in this age of browser and user vulnerabilities. There are now ways for sites to create contracts or metacontracts with visitors to give a better sense of trust in the site and with the company itself. Sites already use DOCTYPEs and other specifications of page-level technology to make a contract with the browser regarding compliance -- sites as a whole and services on their pages should do likewise.

Following these lines of thought, sites should also look at ways:

1. to provide information about the scripts they run on a page and across the site. Current sites are not solely static -- they use lots of javascript to make their pages dynamic, and use ajax to shuttle information back and forth between servers and browsers without leaving a page. But buried within those pages are also visitor trackers and site statistic analyzers. A good citizen site should explicitly say what these scripts do and what they provide. Doubleclick.net scripts should be tagged as "web tracking" and Omniture scripts as "visitor statistics" or something similar. jQuery, Dojo, and prototype scripts as "user interface" (tho I'd love to see that even more finegrained, such as "embedding video" or "providing [some] control to the page"... however specific the site wants to be within reason).
2. to provide security information -- what will you collect, how will it be used, with whom is it shared, what cookies are used, are 3rd party cookies used, why/for what services and reasons. With what other sites are you aligned and what other sites do you not trust?
3. to provide accessibility information -- are you WAI or US 508 compliant? what have you tested against (e.g. screen readers, braille readers)
4. to provide universality information -- are you only visual web browser compliant? do you accept and properly provide for other user agents from the World Wide Web? (since that is the medium you're building on :)
5. to provide overall information on the services you provide and link to -- account management services (and if they're handled by other domains that you control or don't control), video links and services, etc. What other domains do you control and should be considered to be "friends" to this site for web-of-trust concerns? What sites can you vouche for?
   

This is only the beginning though, things that are at the top of my head as an information architect, web site builder, usability and accessibility proponent, standards evangelist, and everyday Web user. Sites starting to do things like this will make significant steps towards making the Web less frontier-like and more trustworthy, fully building on the capabilities and philosophies that Tim Berners-Lee and other parents of the Web first envisioned.

I've been using Firefox's "quick" bookmarking (using the star in the address bar) more and more, and really kinda like it. I like just being able to store the link to the page, and then go back later and do my organization as wanted or necessary. I've been doing this both with my work browser setup and my home browser setup.

One thing that occurred to me that still seems missing or would at least be nice is the idea of "site" bookmarking versus just page-level bookmarking. For instance, sometimes I just want to bookmark the site because it has lots of good info on it. If I've dug into a site-deep page, I may rise back to the site index, bookmark that, and then go back to the page I was on. Or I may end up bookmarking multiple pages accidentally for the site (the site-deep page and the main page).

So two things came to mind:

1. The ability to see if you've bookmarked a page on the current site before -- needn't be this particular page you're looking at, but any page, just so you know that you've been to the site itself before and that you're starting to find the site overall to be useful for reference. Maybe also show if you've bookmarked the site as a whole already. Thinking the indicator for one or both cases could be a half-star in the URL bar to go along with the current full-star used when bookmarking the current page.
2. The ability to choose to bookmark the site as a whole or just the current page -- still using the quick bookmarking capabilities of FF. Maybe hold down the left/main button on the star to choose between site and page-level quick bookmarking.

This idea assumes that people find the concept of sites to be as important as pages for future referencing (I know I tend to do so, but maybe not everyone does). One could also potentially extrapolate this out to section-bookmarking if so valuable.

Well, I've not touched my LJ blog in a long time, but thought I'd give it a go again.

I've had some various things going through my head and figured this would be a good place to put them, rather than on facebook itself. I'll just end up putting an RSS link there for new posts here.

New entry coming shortly. Thanks for reading!

Awake at 4AM this morning, I ventured out hoping to find gas and did. I also wasn't the only one doing this. Filled up the Accord and the Land Cruiser both -- luckily the gas station is just down the road.

4AM... no one should have to think of looking for gas at 4AM in this country in this day and age.

Two more weeks of gas chaos, official says | ajc.com

*epic sigh*

"Perdue says gas panic is ‘self-induced’"
http://www.ajc.com/search/content/metro/stories/2008/09/24/atlanta_gas_governor.html

Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue said Wednesday that there were shortages
of gasoline in parts of metro Atlanta, and he called some of the panic
“self-induced.”

“There is ample fuel in the city,” he said. “It’s not everywhere it
needs to be, but we do not have a crisis in the sense that we don’t
have fuel coming in.”

Errrm... methinks Sonny needs to come out of his ivory tower and drive around the city looking for gas. I can't speak for the westside of the metro area, but the east side is pretty much bone dry. Station after station along 85 and the main side roads are without fuel. When fuel does arrive, it's a feeding frenzy of long lines (burning gas idling) and traffic jams as people wait to get into the station before it runs dry again.

To be honest, I'm surprised so far that this hasn't blown up socially more than it has. People do seem to be patient and at least civil while waiting.

But back to the main point here: Sonny and his finger-pointing back at the populace. He seems to be ignorant or conveniently forgetting the fact that ATL has one of the highest commute rates not just in the country but the world. We're a driving city -- we don't have the mass transit system of NYC or Boston, nor do we have a walkable footprint of mixed use and nearby conveniences. We have The Sprawl. Not only have our gas rates rocketed up over the last couple years, but now our drivers are vying for fuel when it's even available for a short window. It's *our* fault that there's a shortage? Of course people are going to [over-]react to the threat that gas supplies may be threatened. Of course our commuter city is going to pounce on what stations receive fuel. Of course there will be frustration.

But Sonny, sir, what have *you* done to mitigate those fears and concerns up to this point? Where were you, sir, telling the city to calm down and be more frugal with fuel before and after the hurricanes affecting our supply? Where were you, sir, when the supplies began dropping and people reacted by queuing and "hording?" Where have you been, sir, to think that this is all *our* fault? I've not heard anything from you until now. You've not shown up at any gas stations or made any previous efforts (nor speeches, tho those have zilch value right now) to soften this and assuage the popular fear. It's like you just ignored the thoughts that this would happen. It's like you denied that people would react and act like this. With lip service to lower-grade gas on it's way, where the hell is it? What's the timetable? Which suppliers and stations will get it first?

And you know what? I only see how this is affecting metro ATL. I feel and worry about what it must be doing to the people in the exurbs and beyond. Macon... Rome... Tifton... Helen... what are they experiencing? And the smaller towns... good god, I'll be surprised if more people don't call for Perdue's impeachment. He hasn't done ANYTHING visible except pass the blame on this "crisis" -- yes it is a crisis.

So whatcha gonna do, Sonny? 5 million Atlantans would really like to know.

“The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held,
but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are
held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any
moment lead to their abandonment.” -- Bertrand Russell

[Found at http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/09/cognitive_dissonance_and_polit.php#comment-1109628 -- thanks to Jope for the link to the original article re: my previous post on Palin]

Pretty much describes my personal perspective on politics and opinions in general.

What is it about Sarah Palin that seems so alluring to potential voters?

Is it because she's a woman?
Is it because she's white?
Is it because she's a white woman?
Is it the MILF factor?
Should the fact that she's a woman play any part in what is a basic political decision?
Is it because there's some impression or thought that she's "one of us?" (Who's this "us" anyway?)
Is she really "one of us?" Is that the type of person that should be involved in running the country, let alone in taking part in the greater global diplomacy?
Is it because there's some impression that she's closer to Middle America?
Are people grasping for some sort of Mrs. Smith going to Washington?
Are people stuck in some sort of daydream/fantasy that by having a so-called "hockey mom" in office that everything will be better as she pats your head and offers you cookies and milk before bedtime?
How the hell does being a "hockey mom" make you a good national VP?
Don't her evangelical religious views and statements, mixing religion with economics and politics, concern and scare anyone?
Is it the fact that she's a Christian? That's a broad classification... Is she the same kind of Christian as you? By the way, we're no more Christian nation than a Jewish or Buddhist one. And we have explicit Constitutional orders to separate faith from government.

Have people forgotten what the hell has happened over the last 8 years? ...What it's like having a failed cowboy who people thought was "one of us?" What he's done to our standing in the world, let alone our economy? Questionable wars? Hypocritical statements about invasions? Anyone? Anyone?

And where the hell is Joe Biden? Why isn't he stepping into the spotlight as the other VP candidate? Why isn't he making himself known and bolstering Obama's position?

Inspiring... eloquent... well-spoken... well-written... well-delivered... emotionally engaging... politically and procedurally agreeable... All things I would use to describe Obama's speech tonight at the DNC.

I literally sat, hands clasped, enthralled, at the edge of my sofa and at the edge of happy tears during the speech. So much of it I agree with and believe in. So much I heard him say that went to key issues addressing complaints about the party and its platform. So much said that tackled both personal AND social responsibilities for the populace. I had not heard a speech in American politics, especially from a presidential candidate, so well-written and so well-delivered in far too long... Our speech-making and public-speaking has stagnated, and often recently I've pined for something moving, something articulate, something legendary like those speeches given in the historical hey-days of our country.

I can't say that I was 100% with the speech though. There were often times where I thought that Obama was almost there with his points... where I found myself editing him, rewording him, rephrasing him so that his words DID address some of my own philosophies and political issues I think are important. I wanted him to make that last step of confronting the conservative critics and clueless curmudgeons. I wanted him to commit to those wronged ideologies and explanations of what it means to be a Democrat, and I dare say a social liberal. But I'm happy that he at least made some dialog towards them, even if he didn't seal the deal. The most important thing to me was hearing him tie in personal responsibility to social responsibility. Perhaps some will consider it to be a moderate approach, but I believe that it's a clear statement that has been overlooked and understated for far too long. It's time to review and reiterate the fundamentals of what it means to be a Democrat, a "liberal."

It is indeed time for Change. Senator Obama, you have my support. Well-said tonight, sir, well-said.

How many people have a doctor who spontaneously hugs them goodbye after a regular checkup visit? Thanks, Dr. B. -- I needed that.

It's going to be a good week this week.

I have to admit: I don't get it -- "it" being model or glamour photography. And I don't get what makes a good model shot versus a mediocre or bad one. They all seem like glorified GWC (guy with camera) snapshots to me of lowcore erotica.

Is it my perspective as a gay man not seeing the same thing in the models that a straight man would? No erotic intrigue, only form and pose? Or could it be my perspective on photography as a medium and art form -- where I diminish the importance and my interest of model photography compared to "fine art," street, and fashion photography? Hell, I even find active family snapshots more intriguing than model photography for the most part.

There are a number of photographers in a local flickr group that make model shots others in the group think are the bee's knees. I look at them and see them as flat, simply-posed shots, almost snapshotty but without the passion and "moment." Simple portfolio fodder -- for the model. Or the photog processes the hell out of them. They don't speak to me or prompt my interest. What am I missing? Honestly, I want to understand.

Please explain Helmut Newton to me. I'm an Irving Penn man myself.

So, Bennigans has something called the "Lepregram" in the footer of their website. The name alone conjures things not fit for a restaurant chain, at least outside of impoverished sections of India served by Mother Theresa. It then shuttles you off to a disjointedly surreal and equally disturbing subsite to "Feed [Your] Inner Leprechaun."

Is there any wonder why they've apparently filed for bankruptcy? They left Atlanta a while ago, I'm surprised they still exist elsewhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji5_MqicxSo

From abcnews.com:
"The brick walls are there for a reason," [Dr. Pausch] said during his lecture.
"The brick walls are not there to keep us out. The brick walls are
there to give us a chance to show how badly we want something."

"New legal threat to teaching evolution in the US"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926643.300

Let's get our concepts and terminology correct here: Intelligent design is not science -- as a most generous definition, it is philosophy, and therefore it is not appropriate to be placed in the same educational context as science, and in this specific case with evolution. ID does not follow the rigors of the scientific method, does not produce scientific research and results, and cannot be consistently verified through controlled experiments. Its reliance on the notion of a supernatural agent (i.e. god(s)) is not scientific -- by its very nature, that agent is erratic and unverifiable. The bible and any other religious documents are not a scientific documents. Faith and belief are not scientific principles. The word "theory" does not mean unproven or philosophically posited, as it is often erroneously used by the public where they would be more correct using "hypothetical."

I'm sorry, Mr and Mrs Religious Public, if you don't like the ideas of evolution, but that's too bad. Your beliefs are different from fact. At one time people thought the sun revolved around the earth because that's what the bible inferred. People thought that women were unclean during menstruation, and that demons lived in our bodies. Science is not always obvious or the same as "common sense," and that's okay. But democracy and discussion doesn't invalidate scientific fact. Specialists and experts exist to answer questions and ask more so that we further our knowledge. Your preacher most likely is not a scientist or an expert in biology. What's next? Someone challenging mathematics? Does your god say that 1 + 1 doesn't equate to 2? Or you find some particular personal affront in the integral of e to the x?

Get over it. The rest of the larger world is laughing at us because of your blind and misguided views. We're all missing the wonders of life and the universe because you disagree with facts. Shame on you.

i never cease to be amazed at how large organizations can be fundamentally inefficient and misdirected, yet still find success through their gargantuan momentum and mere presence in the market.

i left my last job because of how the ineptitude of my boss affected my job and my ability to grow and advance in my career with the company and in my field. i found him to be neither creative nor a director, both essential parts to his two-word title. being critiqued in my job performance by him was like having a customer who's only seen a wrench tell a trained head mechanic how to overhaul a modern engine. when i was knocked for being a poor manager and promised professional development and external coaching, he didn't follow through with it and let the offer die (essentially invalidating the issue, in my opinion). his knack for being short-sighted and more a glad-hand friend of consumer sales rather than a leader of our creative team and its responsibilities meant that i and the other senior managers on the team often had to manage and direct our boss like he was a junior member of staff. it finally came down to him beginning to remove me from my management and leadership roles when i decided to leave what should have been a great career opportunity.

when i left i thought the writing would be on the wall for him. it seemed that his boss and others in our ecommerce department were aware of his shortcomings and his deflection of responsibility for failures to his own reportees. i dreamt of hearing the pending word that he was canned or that he left for greener pastures elsewhere in companies that didn't know how professionally immature and devoid of web and business experience he was. chats with friends and colleagues still at my old company gave me hope that things were in the works for my old bosses departure. nobody respected him, everyone thought he was a liability to the department's success, so why would he continue to be on staff?

but that never happened. instead, it seems like he's escalated in ranks somehow, and others whom i thought would lead the charge to better business models in the company left or were forced out. i don't know how he does it, but apparently he exudes an air of success to those above him, most likely based on the strength and success of those who report to him. their ideas and talents i'm sure are absorbed into him and belched forth unacknowledged, names only mentioned when he needs a shield for fucking up what usually is a solid plan that he himself has probably tripped over instead of understanding and supporting it fully.

how do large companies get away with this? how do they find ways to keep the bad seeds around, poisoning the crop? how do these inefficient, politically astute but talentless distractions find ways to rise in the ranks and continue to affect team and company performance and morale negatively? i'd say it was shakespearean but it's nowhere near as elegant or eloquent as his work... it's mere reduction of his tragedies, but a tragedy none the less. is this one of those situations where the grand conservatism of a large company clashes with my sense of progressivism? i've never thought a job with execs in suits symbolized so much.