Monday, October 31, 2005
I think the upcoming battle over the new Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito, will allow the originalists among us to step up and show the world that we're not all hot-air and bluster. But the spines of the Republicans in the Senate will be the test. Will Orrin Hatch be able to stand having bad things written about him in the New York Times? Will John McCain tolerate having Tim Russert call him a *GASP* supporter of a conservative? Will Olympia Snowe be able to show her face at dinner parties after voting for someone that is also supported by Rush Limbaugh?
I think in the end, there are a very few Senators that we've got to watch closely to make sure this goes through. We already know that Chuckie Schumer (scumbag #2) will oppose, merely because he's appointed by President Bush. And that Teddy (scumbag#1) Kopechne..I mean Kennedy, will oppose, again, because this person is not a card carrying ACLU member.
But the folks we have to worry about are the Arlen Spectres of the world. The Susan Collinses. Not the Sam Brownbacks of the world.
Conservatives, step up. Let your voice be heard for once. And stop listening to the whining on the left. It's our time to lead. President Bush has heard our voice loud and clear. Let's make sure the left wing of America does too.
Monday, October 24, 2005
I think that this once again points out the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals go to Full Metal Jacket and point and say "See? There's the violence in the system. There's why we shouldn't have gone to Vietnam, because they're just peace loving people and we were the 'jolly green giants' that went over there to kill people". Of course, those of us who know the military and who are more on the conservative side look at it and say "Most of those 'peace-loving' folks were the ones who also shot at our troops at night, booby trapped roads, and killed many of our troops". Much like Iraq now, the libs only want to see the oppositions side, as opposed to ours, where a victory makes the world a safer place. They only want to see the cost, as opposed to the reward.
5. Office Space (yes, Office Space has several!) During the "Bob's Meeting":
Peter Gibbons: You see Bob, it's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care.
Bob Porter: Don't...don't care?
Peter Gibbons: It's a problem of motivation, all right? Now if I work my ass off and Initech ships a few extra units, I don't see another dime, so where's the motivation? And here's another thing, I have eight different bosses right now.
Bob Porter: Eight?
Peter Gibbons: Eight, Bob. So that means when I make a mistake, I have eight different people coming by to tell me about it. That's my only real motivation is not to be hassled, that, and the fear of losing my job. But you know, Bob, that will only make someone work just hard enough not to get fired.
4. Full Metal Jacket - Gunny Hartman is introducing himself as only a Drill Instructor can:
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training, you will be a weapon. You will be a minister of death praying for war. But until that day you are pukes. You are the lowest form of life on Earth. You are not even human, fucking beings. You are nothing but unorganized grabastic pieces of amphibian shit. Because I am hard you will not like me. But the more you hate me the more you will learn. I am hard but I am fair. There is no racial bigotry here. I do not look down on niggers, kikes, wops or greasers. Here you are all equally worthless. And my orders are to weed out all non-hackers who do not pack the gear to serve in my beloved Corps. Do you maggots understand that?3. Jerry Maguire - Jerry's speech as he's leaving the firm:
Jerry: Well, don't worry. Don't worry. I'm not gonna to do what you all think I'm gonna to do, which is just FLIP OUT! But let me just, let me just say, as I ease out of the office I helped build -- I'm sorry, but it's a FACT! -- that there is such a thing as manners, a way of treating people. These fish have manners. These fish have manners. In fact, they're coming with me. I'm starting a new company, and the fish will come with me. You can call me sentimental. The fish -- they're coming with me. Okay. If anybody else wants to come with me, this moment will be the moment of something real, and FUN, and inspiring in this god-forsaken business, and we will do it together. Who's comin' with me? Who's coming with me? Who's coming with me besides "Flipper," here?2. Dirty Harry - As Clint Eastwood is just about ready to blast a criminal who desperately deserves it, he plays a few mind games with him:
I know what you're thinking: "Did he fire six shots, or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But, being this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya punk?
1. A Few Good Men - Colonel Jessep introduces Lt. Weinberg to the real world of a Marine-
Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of thevery freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!
Friday, October 21, 2005
Those of you who work with me know that we have occasional teleconferences for our group in order to pass along information like what's going on with the group, how we're doing financially, and where the leadership of the group wants to see us going in the future.
I look forward to those conferences just about as much as I look forward to lighting my genitals on fire with napalm.
So, I struggle through the conference while sitting in an airport waiting for my delayed flight, listening to this stuff (I use stuff instead of the word I really want to use, because let's face it, this is a family blog), and as it finishes with a whimper, I really want to call someone and complain.
Then it hits me.
None of the folks that I used to call and complain, or IM to and complain are with the firm any longer. No Bad Andy. No OmahaJ. No B-wags. No Jiggidy.
Back to the original realization of a few posts ago.....Welcome to the Suck.
St. Louis, in 'The Hill' neighborhood, which apparently is an old Italian neighborhood, where Joe Garagiola and Yogi Berra grew up. There are several Italian restaurants in this area, but we were given a list of the 'top' ones, based upon quality of the grub. Cunetto's is down in this area, and we were amazed at the amount of food you are served. The service was great, and the food was incredible.
I got the Chicken Cardinale which was amazing. I could see where it could be a very rich dish that one would get sick on if not prepared right, but it was perfectly done where it was just rich enough to make me want more.
Of course, this was the night of Game 6 of the NLCS, so we headed downtown to Caleco's bar, which was amusing, but overwhelmed with angry Cardinal fans. Seems that unlike Tiger fans (of which I count myself), Cardinal fans actually expect their team to WIN?!?! Since I really don't know what that's about, I was confused. It's a cool downtown with what looks like several things to do. First time I've seen The Arch. Looked pretty cool, but we didn't go up in the beast, as it was kind of late in the evening. We were offered tickets to the game in the top of the 2nd, and since the bar we were at was a block from the stadium, we probably could have been their by the bottom of the 2nd, but the guys I was with didn't want to pay $100 for tix. Hell, I would have in a heartbeat, being that it's the last game in Busch Stadium before the renovation (which they're basically demolishing much of the old park and building another park in its place, but keeping some of it.
Overall, it was amusing, but probably not somewhere I'd spend a lot of time. I'd rate Columbus, Indy, and Chicago higher. Probably about even with Cleveland/Detroit.
However, I got a little more interested today, not sure why exactly. I know that Judith Miller went to jail to protect her source, and while I respect the principle that she stood for, I disagree with the concept. Journalists should be required to reveal their sources in situations where national security or the personal security of an individual is at risk. This is the case here where Valerie Plame was supposedly outed as a CIA agent.
The interesting thing here is that the person who originally came out with the story, Robert Novak, has not been put in jail for not revealing his source. Why has he not been subpoenaed? Again, maybe I missed something, but I know that he's not been in jail, as I keep seeing him on TV (lord I hate CNN, but it's all they show in airports). I like Novak, but if he's the guy who knows the source of this entire controversy, why doesn't the prosecutor just subpoena him, get him to tell the source or put him in jail, and we can be done with it?
Well, after getting up to speed on the controversy, I'm thinking that I know why. If we did that, we'd get the guilty party, and the controversy would be over. No more grand jury rumors about Dick Cheney. No more grand jury rumors about Karl Rove. No more distractions, no more news coverage of this ignorance. That can't happen. The people driving this controversy don't want the truth, they just want as much distraction and weakening of the current administration as they can possibly cause, and so far, that's working for them.
The amusing thing is that many liberal-leaning columnists are talking about how they have higher ethics than Novak, because they were contacted by the same sources with the same information, but they didn't publish it because of their concerns regarding security. Funny, they didn't give a rats ass about security when they published pictures from Abu Ghraib, or troop movements.
Overall, this certainly seems to be a manufactured controversy, mostly because Valerie Plame hasn't been a field operative for over two years, and in fact has been working in the CIA offices in Virginia for some time. If people can't figure out that she's CIA by following her to work, then they're dumber than I give them credit for.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
It was amazing in its accuracy of a portrayal of the life of a grunt, a Marine, and of wartime. I'm only about a third of the way through it, and want to finish it prior to seeing the movie, but I'll post more later about my opinion of the book.
Friday, October 14, 2005
Then he posts an away message which begged for more beating, but got me thinking. It was something along the lines of "Since when did liberal become a dirty word?". Of course, my initial thought was to berate his ignorance. But then where's the educational value in that? So instead, I thought that I'd elaborate here, rather than over IM, because, being a college-student skull full-o-mush, I'm sure he was out experiencing all kinds of debauchery last night and will be sleeping until noon or so today. So, here goes:
1. Liberalism became a dirty word in the 60's. That was when the student leaders of various groups who were more attracted to socialist thought and communism of the day led anti-American protests, disguised as anti-war protests. It's interesting that the majority of the anti-war protests focused upon President Nixon, and blamed him for much of the issues in Vietnam, when in actuality it was two Democrat presidents in a row who got us into Vietnam, and President Nixon got us out. But since those presidents were more in line with the thought of many students, they got more of a pass. Of course, the far left continued with chants of "Hey Hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?", but that was a pretty small minority. These were the types who believe that war, no matter what it's for isn't acceptable. We'll address that later
2. Liberalism became a dirty word in the 70's. That was when gas lines became something of the norm for a period of time and solar and wind power were being pushed by liberals as legitimate alternative sources of energy. When liberal economic policies put the economy of America in the toilet, like price fixing, rent controls, and increased taxes, despite the fact that they were initiated by a Republican president. Still liberal ideas. When skyrocketing interest rates, inflation and unemployment was caused by huge tax increases to pay for the liberal ideas that we should pay people to sit on their asses and have more kids, ruining the nuclear family forever, because hey, with government paying for it, why do we need a father?
3. Liberalism became a dirty word in the 80's. That's when President Reagan pushed a "Peace through Strength" philosophy, which liberals opposed at every turn. Their belief that our strength only made the Russians want to attack us is laughable at best. At worst, it could have caused WWIII, because the Russians were expansionist and as we saw with 9/11, when your opponent thinks that you're weak and won't respond, they attack you. Liberals also showed their economic ignorance during this time when they opposed the Reagan re-write of the tax code that brought lower taxes to every American, that started an economic expansion that lasted approximately 20 years. Clinton can't take credit for the economy of the 90's, only that he stayed the hell out of its way.
4. Liberalism became a dirty word in the 90's. That's when even when an invasion of a sovereign country by a terrorist dictator, and the liberation of that country by the US and many of our Allies (and me, by the way), STILL brought protests from the left wing saying that we should give peace a chance. And we see how well that worked over the years. Giving peace a chance all over Africa has brought us child warriors. In southeast Asia, it's brought us more dictators, and in South America it has brought us governments run by drug lords. Peace. Yep, works every time. NOT. Oh yeah, the 90's was also the time that political correctness began to run rampant. When groups on various college campuses were pushed off campus or not given funding because they may have been conservative, but the Transvestite and Gay alliance was fully funded. This was also when welfare was abandoned by the Democrats as a failure, and revamped considerably.
5. Liberalism is still a dirty word in the 2000's. That would be when an invasion of a country that helped to fund terrorism, had a chemical warfare program, had the facilities to make chemical weapons, and had in its posession chemical weapons, and was working on a nuclear weapon program was protested by the liberals as another opportunity to give peace a chance. Nevermind the fact that we've liberated 25 million people and closed the rape-rooms and torture chambers of Saddam and his sons forever. We'll selectively ignore that. That's also when the liberals loved to point out anything that was anti-American around the world and anything that may have been imperfect about the US, including the stupidity at Abu Ghraib, etc and point out why their way is better. Al Gore recently said at a speech in Sweden (the only place he could give this speech and not be laughed at) that had he become president, we wouldn't be torturing people every day. Al, I got news for you pal. Had you become president, you would have been torturing 230 million people, every day with your ignorance. The 2000's is also when it became a crime to say the words 'under God' when saying the pledge of allegiance. And when the Ten Commandments was removed from a large number of public structures, and when anything remotely religious has had to be removed from anything public, including manger scenes, prayers, etc. Hey libs, read the constitution. It says 'freedom OF religion', not freedom FROM religion.
So, in short, that's when liberalism became a dirty word. Liberalism is not about freedom. It's about control. Modern day Liberals want to have the government control much of your life, from your economics to what you think. We can't have freedom of discussion, because if you go to a liberal forum, you will get shouted down, spit at, or attacked. So much for 'give peace a chance'. Liberals are the most hypocritical people in the world. It's fine for them to attack a conservative because they are being provoked. Apparently, they lose control of all their bodily functions when presented with an independent thought. Anyone who says that modern-day liberalism is about freedom of choice, freedom of thought, freedom of anything is reading it out of a book and not living in the real world. Look around you. Experience life, and then tell me that liberals want you to have freedom.
Glad that I could help educate. Welcome to ConservativeU.
Friday, October 07, 2005
- Travels without question, to the smallest clients, all over the place, always keeping a positive attitude
- Still takes a role on projects that people of their same seniority and experience very rarely take.
- Technically strong and provides technical leadership to new members of the team
- Well respected amongst team members, both peers and managers.
- Well respected and liked by clients, big and small.
- With the company for more than four years, and probably one of the least negative people in the the entire time. A person that we all can rely upon when something needs to get done.
- Not a suckup, does not do things explicitly for the advancement of their career
- Not respected by peers. Partners seem to like, but mostly because this person takes credit for ideas not their own, and for work not their own.
- Not respected by clients. Clients have asked for this person to physically leave the site and refused to pay for the services provided by that person. Another client asked if a findings was reworded "because ____ didn't understand the big words".
- Not technical at all, but takes up spots in technical training and on technical jobs because it would advance their career
- Spends time on projects doing other work, unrelated to the project, and then dumps work off on co-workers at the last minute, and gets angry when that work isn't done.
- Condescends to new people, old people, clients, and anyone that they can, as long as it doesn't affect their career.
- With the company for less than four years
Well, allow me to enlighten you as to who the leadership of the group that I work for promoted. But the short answer is, it makes me question whether this leadership has anything resembling a clue, and whether this is the right place for me as a career. I'm disappointed and angry. I look at the people who've left the group. I keep telling myself that I'm the one doing the right thing, and they're the ones making the mistake.
And now, I realize, I'm probably wrong.
Christ that realization sucks ass.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
I'm talking about how politicians like to talk a good game about something, and when it comes to standing up for a principle or taking a position that shows you really do believe in something, not doing it.
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), our hated senator, who I am convinced would be a good grandmother, but is probably arguably one of the worst senators in history, has done just that. The following advertisement was in several papers in Michigan last weekend.
lip service(lip sûr'vis)
Verbal expression of agreement or allegiance,
unsupported by real conviction or action.
When activist judges said children can't say the Pledge of Allegiance in Public schools...
Sen. Debbie Stabenow was quick to support the Pledge in an essentially meaningless bill.
When activist judges banned the public display of the Ten Commandments...
Sen. Stabenow, then in the U.S. House, voted to defend the commandments in a bill that went nowhere.
And when activist judges once again struck down laws to protect your children from online pornography...
Mrs. Stabenow lamented that "there is little that parents can do to shield their children from Internet Pornographers."
The root of these problems is the misuse of judicial powers in our federal courts.
And when Sen. Stabenow finally had the chance to confirm Supreme Court Justice
John Roberts, who opposes such misuse of judicial power, she voted NO.
She sided again with the same liberal groups tht supported such judicial activism.
Please call Sen. Stabenow and let her know that
actions still speak louder than words.
Remind her that when she votes for the next Supreme Court Justice, her first responsibility is to Michigan families - Not liberal special-interest groups.
Paid for by Focus on the Family ActionTM, FRC Action and Public Interest Forum of Michigan
Flint 810-720-4172 East Lansing 517-203-1760 Marquette 906-228-8756 Detroit 313-961-4330 Traverse City 231-929-1031 Grand Rapids 616-975-0052
Peter Brandt, 8655 Explorer Dr., Colorado Springs, CO 80920 (719)278-4400 © 2005, Focus on the Family Action
Since I have a pretty good idea that not only do my peers read this, but the occasional management person, this normally would be a good place to vent. However, doing a quick search at Google for "Fired for blog" returned over 2100 entries, which blunted my actual desire to beat the hell out of my company in this forum. Take a look at Dooce.com and you'll understand.
Nonetheless, I will offer my opinion on the situation, and let the chips fall where they may.
1. There seems to be a general "they don't give a rats ass" attitude amongst the staff. What I mean by that is when someone quits, it doesn't seem like the people in charge do all that they can do to retain them. Granted, some situations, like the guy who is leaving on Friday, are just un-addressable (is that a word?). But there are plenty of times when if they'd just clue in early, the person could be saved.
2. When 43% of the people who worked for you 10 months ago have left, you'd think that most groups would be damn near in a panic, unless of course you want to root out all the people who worked for the earlier group, in order to replace them with a crew of 'yes-men'.
3. When 43% of the people who worked for you 10 months ago have left, you'd think that raises for the remaining walking wounded would be significant. But, according to the few people I've talked to, they're average, at best. I don't know the exact figures, as that would probably be grounds for me to get canned, but the folks that have volunteered the information around me, have stated that they've had better. And contrary to the rumor which circulated even amongst partners/senior staff, I don't have a spreadsheet of everyones raises and bonuses. I just have a good feel as to what many of them were, and some people actually shared theirs with me because they feel comfortable talking to me about their concerns and problems and I listen. Perhaps if management would like to save some people from leaving, they should try that tack. Listening.
4. Overall, I think the reason why we've lost so many technically strong people is because the challenges aren't there any longer. How exactly is filling out a worksheet with X's in the appropriate box challenging? Ok, I guess the challenge there is to keep from falling asleep, or to see what kinds of cool pictures you can make with the x's, but from a brain-stimulation standpoint, there's not much. Our former leader was constantly challenging us to come up with new ideas and motivating us to charge forward with technical thought leadership. Our current leadership doesn't seem to really see the importance, or if they do, they're more concerned with billable hours than innovation.
5. The company I work for, overall is a good company to work for, as companies go. The job is ok, could be better, but certainly could be a lot worse. However, it is just that. A job. Not a career, and that's what I'm afraid that many of my co-workers are feeling also. The former management made you feel like you were a member of a team, and that the loss of one person was a hit to the entire team. The current leadership seems to just want ignore that they left, and not replace them and act like it's just another day. Not only have we lost a ton of great people but we can't seem to hire new people to replace them. I'm not sure whether that's due to effort on our part or a function of the job market, but either way, we're doing a huge amount of work, with 43% fewer people.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
You all know that a pick of someone who already has conservative bona fides would have started WWIII in the Senate, and the 'Spineless Seven' who sided with seven Democrats to stop the rules changes regarding filibusters would never stand up to any sort of public criticism. These are the people who read the New York Times, hoping that the editorial board will say something nice about them. These are the spineless scumbags that caused this entire issue. When they did an about-face on their principles, they caused a chain of events that caused the President to be forced to choose candidates for the Supreme Court that are relative unknowns.
Howard Dean and the rest of the nut-jobs on the left have already promised a "fight to the death" for this next appointment, and since the Republicans in the Senate can't seem to get their shit together enough to fight the good fight, the President was left with no choice but to go with a relative unknown.
It's funny how all these people are coming out of the woodwork saying "We want this fight, this is a fight we'll win", but yet when other conservative fights come up, you don't see them on the mat throwing punches. They're in their safe little offices, holed up while others do their fighting for them.
Get a clue idiots, you made this bed. Deal with it.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
and Southern Republicans?
The answer can be found by posing the following question:
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises his knife, and charges at you.
You are carrying a Glock cal .40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.
What do you do?
There's not enough information to answer the question!
Does the man look poor! Or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife think?
What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
What does the law say about this situation?
Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?
Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?
Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
Should I call 9-1-1?
Why is this street so deserted?
We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.
This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus.
Southern Republican's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.....(sounds of
reloading). BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click
Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or