Hmm...

Looks tantalizing...doesn't it!

How to get that day off work...hmm....

Change You Can Count On Not Happening

Last week, Marie and I stopped into our local second amendment support center and picked up some new hardware. The gal assisting us happened to be the owner of the business, and spoke freely about anything and everything. (She was very helpful, too.)

She started talking about how both Bush and Obama blew it. If they really wanted to help the economy, they could have taxed guns and ammo an additional 5%, and they would be in tall cotton. I thought she had a good point there. Not that I liked it, but that it was a good point.

On the way home, Marie and I started talking about this. We came to the conclusion it would never happen. Why, you ask? That's easy: Democrats and RINO's would never, ever formally admit that the gun industry is a significant part of the consumer economy, and would never knowingly support it by depending on taxes from it. That would be like a Christian knowingly and purposely supporting the porn industry.

So, instead, Obama will increase regulations on things like foreign manufactured guns and ammo, and put wholesalers and American manufacturers in a position of not keeping up with demand. If you haven't heard yet...yes, that is the plan. That way, Obama can say he will defend the Second Amendment but still eradicate our ability to use the arms we now own.

A Takeover

Pastors and Pastorettes,

Do you have an awesome vision for your church and the way it should work?

Is your church membership bucking your vision, you know, the one given directly to you BY GOD?

Are your members acting like Christianity started some two-thousand years ago and actually has a history behind it?

It's up to YOU to do something about it!


Okay, enough of the gibberish. I stumbled across what looks like a rational view not of what happened to Issues, Etc., but the "why".

This is an excellent article by someone who has seen this before. I think the confessional congregations ought to tell their members - even those that do not have computers - about it.

A Question

This is not a test. It's absolutely, positively 100% open for discussion. I hope it turns into a nice, long, meandering thread, because it should.

Question: when does it become a national security interest for the federal government to prop up the economy?

I'm sorry, but "never" is not a viable response on this thread. I want to see reasons for every response.

As most (if not all) of you know, I am conservative in my political ideals. I prefer that government be left out to the fullest extent possible when it comes to the economy, and definitely when it comes to trampling our liberties. Even as a Christian - confessional Lutheran, to be precise - I don't like religion being pushed down my throat. I'm not for tweaking or skewing the Constitution, and I despise that none of the branches of federal government utilize all of the checks and balances they've been granted. I also don't like that those state-to-federal checks and balances aren't used.

That's where I start. Which leads back to the question: when does it become a national security interest for the federal government to prop up the economy?

Doin' Anything this Friday Night?

My employer is raising funds for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF), and our Policy Services department wanted to do an after-work event. One of the managers was asked, "Why don't you ask one of your band friends if they will perform?" So she asked me if Running in Circles would perform.

Happily, the band said yes. This is a good chance for us to expand our audience - I've been trying to get some of these folks to come to our gigs for two years - and raise money for a good cause. We will be playing at the Mavis Winkles this Friday, February 22 starting at 8:00pm. Cover is $5, with proceeds going 50/50 to JDRF and the band.

For the employees, appetizers will be provided between 5:00-7:00pm. No, those of you reading are not employees, and I will not lie for you. :-p

Mavis Winkles is located in Independence, OH, in the Crown Centre Building on Rockside Road. Hope to see you there.

Strike That. Reverse It.

I was sooooooooo excited about my latest work project. We were going to convert our financial systems over to our parent company's system. It was going to be a full-year project. We were going to take our Senior Vice President of "I'm in the middle of everything" out of the picture for month-end closing activities. (Not eliminate him, just no longer have him be the single point of failure.)

We brought in a consultant who, in previous engagements, successfully conducted conversions to the system our parent company uses. She was just starting to understand our company's lingo, if you will, and make some productive gains.

Yesterday evening, around 5:15, I get the e-mail:

Subject: Ding, dong!

If you've ever been at a company where they FINALLY terminated that awful employee, or transferred them to another department, you know what that means. It means the awful horror is gone, as in, "Ding, dong, the witch is dead!"

I really didn't need to read the rest of the e-mail. Knowing who sent it, and to whom it was addressed, I knew. My project was terminated, thwarted, stopped, permanently delayed.

Shazbot!

Talking to the parent company yields one set of reasons. Talking to our CFO and CIO yields another. I got better info from the grapevine from a peer who is working on other projects to integrate our systems with our parent company's. It is likely a case of not enough planning, then realizing that the conversion is, um, "bigger than a breadbasket". It was not like converting from Money to QuickBooks. The approved funding would not be enough, and would be better spent on another project.

So, that's the "strike that" part of the post.

I also had to tell our consultant and her recruiter that her services are no longer needed at the end of the month. She only started two and a half weeks ago, and was starting to make good progress this week. I hate that stuff; so does my boss. I called a face-to-face meeting with the recruiter to let him know what happened. Yuck!

I then had to call my systems administrator in Florida, and let her know the project wasn't moving forward. She is an expert with the current system, but was looking forward to the cultural change of everyone moving to a new system, and being educated by professionals on the right and proper way to use that system. So much for that. She and I convened today, figuring out how to make lemonade out of lemons. Only time, patience, and a swift kick in the pants to some of the Finance staff will tell if our ideas will be successful.

In other words, I am back to where I was in October.

That's the "reverse it" part.

Now tell me, without using Google or any other search engine, YouTube, or Wiki (or anything of a sort)...in what movie is my post title used?

A Response to GDAEman

I was going to respond to GDAEman's comment to this post in the comments section. I didn't realize I was writing another complete post!

An introduction is in order: GDAEman is a regular commenter on the Patriots and Tyrants blog co-hosted by Scott and me. (If you consider our posting on P&T to be regular.) If you looked at all three of our personal blogs, you would probably say that we shouldn't be agreeing on anything. However, we all believe there is a greater good than the two political parties we succumb to, and have some good conversations that transcend the current goo called U.S. Politics.

I also added GDAEman to my links on the right today. Welcome, GDAEman!

Here it goes.

GDAEman,

Agreed that we have gotten smarter on some principles, and made amends (pun intended). There is something to be said about "life, liberty, and property" though, that gets lost in the mix.

That which I am given, I tend to find less valuable. I'm not talking about family heirlooms or priceless treasures here, which are given to us and are extremely valuable, but primarily only to us. I am talking about commodities on the low end, and common assets that were once seen as luxuries - houses, cars, etc. - on the high end.

Those things that I earn - through profits, wages, battle, debate - I tend to defend and protect. Why do inventors protect and defend their ideas? Because of the years of toil and strain. It's pride of ownership.

What happens when pride of ownership disappears? When someone buys a house, and gets it on a zero down-pay mortgage, then cannot afford the mortgage, what did they really lose? Not the $20,000 they saved up for 5-10 years, because they didn't save it in the first place. Not the ding to their credit score, since their credit score might have been bad already. And who cares when it is socially acceptable to declare bankruptcy at the drop of a hat?

I'm not bundling everyone into the same category here in the sub-prime fiasco. My point is that it's easy to distance yourself from failure when there is nothing to defend, nothing that you owned.

We don't have to earn much nowadays to have more than people in 65-70% of the world. The monthly earnings of some entitlement recipients, which aren't taxed, rival the post-tax discretionary incomes of some low-level professionals and many blue collar workers. We look to be given more, instead of looking to work for more.

We are so far removed from the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, where U.S. liberty was defended on American soil. This pride of ownership issue not only applies to tangible goods, but to ideals as well. Today, we take our liberties for granted, as though they were given to us as a gift, not as something for which we sacrificed lives. We don't "own" our country any more. Pride of ownership is taboo, because it makes those that don't own feel inferior. We can't have that now, can we? Instead, we must build up their self-esteem, tell them how wonderful they are, yet still not nurture them into being thoughtful, productive, progressive members of society.

What I'm saying is that we are a country of enablers. We enable politicians to take us for granted, to use us as their own pieces on their big Risk game board. I can hear it now:

"I want to be red this time."
"Okay, I'll be blue."
"Can I play, too?"
"No! There is only enough room for two of us."
"But what about all those other playing pieces?"
"Won't work. We'll both gang up on you so you can't win."

We enable businesses to take advantage of us by trying to create legal monopolies and stifling competition. We accept 'free' offers for cell phones, wireless service, and for 'click points' on websites. Or we register our buying habits with grocery stores...gas companies...airlines...credit card companies...all so we can pay a little less, or nothing at all, on our next gas purchase or big-ticket-I-still-can't-afford-it fantasy vacation (it's for the children, after all). Nothing like letting all these companies know exactly what our buying habits are. We might as well just give them the keys to the house!

We enable political action groups to tell us when to emote, while never actually delving into why they want us to emote. Why should I MoveOn, when it's just about bashing the Right? Same with Kos. Same with many right-leaning websites. Heck, lefties bash Kucinich and righties bash Paul. What's up with that? Each party now cannibalizes their own non-conformists, instead of letting the voters give them the thumbs up or thumbs down.

We enable the media to whittle down our presidential nominee list for us by volume of positive or negative coverage.

And, conversely, politicians enable us to ask for more, because they keep giving it to us. We get lazier and lazier, ask for more and more, and defend what we have less and less.

Okay, enough ranting. My point is that the Constitution may have been written by wealthy men looking to protect their assets from other wealthy men, but look what happens when we don't want to protect anything - ideals, borders, faiths, liberties. I remember seeing a graphic about the rise and fall of civilizations, I think by Benjamin Disraeli. Looking at the natural regression of civilization after we get "too much", civilization declines rather quickly. From what I recall of the representative graphic, we are almost halfway down the decline.

Geez, I didn't think I would be writing a sub-post. :-)

-----------------------------------------------------------

***I wish I could find that graphic somewhere, something about the body politic. Someone please help; even just citing a legitimate reference would be good.

Under the Bus?

I was presented with two fabulous opportunities this weekend. From the business and Christian perspectives, however, I couldn't take them.

See, both were opportunities to throw someone under the bus. One was band-related, and the other work-related. Some heat was exchanged in the band-related issue, but nothing significant will come of it. I know who the culprit is and what to expect of them. I don't have to be happy about it, but will keep a closer eye on certain situations in the future.

The work issue relates to a C-level employee and a Senior Vice President. They tried throwing me under the bus on Friday, but they could only do that by providing scant information about a situation they knew about, but let fester in myriad ways. I could expose a significant number of issues relating to these persons' department, but that would do nothing. Instead, I took the high road and answered the charges factually, thoroughly and professionally.

I will be working with these folks on a huge conversion project this year. This project, by its mere existence and sponsorship by our new owners, Farmers, will eliminate virtually all of the causes and symptoms of the current situation. These two folks already do not trust IT, yet become their own worst enemy because they then try to have unqualified staff do the work IT should do. So why should I fan the flames of animosity if everything will be sorted out in the next twelve months?

In the meantime, I do what I do best: use my project management and organizational skills at work, and play bass and entertain the crowd at gigs. But, in both situations, I also bite my tongue and exercise patience, neither of which are easy for me.

Freakout Mode

In my career as a project manager, I have devised a number of trite phrases that define what I do, or what other people do, and situations that pop up on occasion. Some of the phrases need no explaining:

• I take the slings and arrows from all comers and still make sure the job gets done.
• Project management is like herding cats, only harder.
• Project plans are never "fact"; they start as "fiction" then go straight to "history".
• You wouldn't need project managers if people would just do what they already committed to doing.
• The five business days prior to a project being implemented for everyone to use are called "hell week".
• You can't cram for a project implementation like you can for a final exam.
  

Then there are the funniest ones. Not that they are really funny, but I look back at the situations where I've used them and laugh.

• Freakout mode - that is the period after people realize that they have responsibility for a project - much later than when the responsibility actually started - and try like crazy to make up for lost time. Depending on the person and the importance of the activity, some people may go into freakout mode before hell week. But most don't. Freakout mode is always preceded by the last item...
• The "OH, SHOOT!" factor. Yes, I cleaned it up for public consumption. No matter what amount of planning, conversing, and reminding you do with some people, you cannot help them avoid this moment. Bribing, encouraging and cajoling do not help. So, you do all you can to avoid it, but you can't.

It's funny - okay, not really - when an entire department collectively hits the "OH, SHOOT!" factor. I get it a lot.

Fun times.

Fed Up

That's it! I've had enough!

I'm sick of that huge, mammoth industry.

The one that takes in significant revenue.
That gouges its customers.
That hurts the environment and doesn't care about the children.
That continues to do things the way it always has.
That keeps putting gobs of money into R&D, but doesn't really think outside the box.

Money grubbing pigs! Dirty rotten filthy stinking rich!

No, I'm not talking about Big Oil. I'm talking about Big Politics.

And I'm not talking about government, but about political parties and interest groups.

How much money is taken in for conducting polls? For PR? For demographic research? For identifying and retaining marginal political talent that won't rock the boat? For non-lobby lobbying groups?

What percentage of the GDP goes to politicking? How much is spent per year, per person? I don't know, and wonder if those numbers can be found anywhere.

How much money goes into reporting about politicking? How many cable television channels exist and talking heads are employed simply because of Big Politics? Ultimately, we are paying for their existence.

To heck with lowering taxes or changing the underlying tax structure. (Okay, I still want that, too!) Let's eliminate Big Politics and their accomplices in the media first.


(Photo is the cover art for Warrant's album, Dirty Rotten Filthy Stinking Rich.)

Green Investments

In July, I wrote this post, asking about investment opportunities in climate change industries. I have since done a little bit more of the due diligence that I expected to do. I was primarily motivated by this article that I saw on the Drudge Report. It talked about the "new millionaires" by way of environmentally friendly companies. I chose to investigate the three companies mentioned in the article to see what investment options they had for me, a U.S. investor.

Here's what I found:

• EcoSecurities: based in Britian, sold only on one of the British stock exchanges, not registered for sale in the U.S.
• Novera Energy: based in Australia or Britian, sold only on one of the British stock exchanges, not registered for sale in the U.S., Australia, Japan or South Africa.
• Solar Integrated Technologies: Incorporated in Delaware, based in Los Angeles. Looks good, eh? Nope. Stocks are listed on one of the British stock exchanges, not registered for sale in the U.S.

What does this mean, "not registered for sale in the U.S."? It means that a U.S. citizen or someone in the U.S. can buy, sell, broker or trade these shares. Now I was getting confused. Why would a U.S. company, Solar Integrated Technologies, not make its shares available to U.S. citizens? I e-mailed the company:

Original request for info:

From: Rick ***
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 9:00 AM
To: Dona ***
Subject: US investor question

Hello,

I was curious why your company, which I learned about from the internet,
does not permit investment to U.S. citizens, even though you are
incorporated in Delaware and based in Los Angeles. Can you please
provide more information so I can understand?

Thank you,
Rick ***

Round 2: Dona's response

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dona ***"
To: Rick ***
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 11:35 AM
Subject: FW: US investor question


Thank you for your interest in Solar Integrated. SIT shares are not
registered for sale in the US.

If I can be of further assistance please let me know.

Thank you,
Dona ***

My next question:

----- Original Message -----

From: "Rick ***"

To: "Dona ***"

Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 9:30 PM

Subject: Re: US investor question

> Hi Dona,
>
> Thank you for responding. I was already aware that SIT shares were not
> registered for sale in the US. I would like to know why they were not
> registered, especially since the company is a legal entity of the United
> States.
>
> Thank you,
> Rick ***

Dona's next response: {crickets chirping}


Yep, no next response. First response only took them nine days to give a non-response. When I asked for more specifics, I received no response.

Why is it that they can't be forthright? Do I need to take this up a level - to the SEC - to find out what this company doesn't want U.S. investors to know? I mean, the company deals in industrial solar panels, not some freakish, space-cadet type of product. Why not let the U.S. investor - you know, the one whose government(s) allow them operate as a business in the first place - invest in your company and your product?

I am deciding what to do next. Any ideas besides going to the SEC? Has anyone else seen or experienced the same thing?

Efficiency, shmishency

At work today, I had the sheer delight and pleasure of working with one of the must curt, disrespectful managers within the company. This individual knows there is only one way to do things: her way.

I explained to her a way that I collaborate with one of my highest profile users, a manager in the Finance department. The gal I was talking to didn't like the method. To be precise, she said, "that's so darn inefficient".

She's right. The method is inefficient. But it's highly effective and garners much-needed good will for me and my department.

You tell me...what's the difference between efficiency and effectiveness? And when do you focus on one over the other?

I guess you can call this a test.

Crazy Circles

I was going to write a post on child discipline, responsibility, and setting and observing boundaries. Things came up, but the idea stayed in my head. They lingered for so long, that additional stuff based on recent work experiences came to mind. So, the post now focuses on...

CIRCLES

Why circles? Because they explain boundaries, discipline, and responsibility (for children and adults) so well. And, no, I'm not getting all loopy on you. Heh, heh.


Assigning responsibility
When it comes to assigning responsibility or setting boundaries, there are typically two philosophies that people consider. They are:

1. Inherently trust - in this philosophy, trust is granted before any proof is given for it. Boundaries are set out at a distance, and people are given freedom to do what they need to do. But, watch out! If the person who is to work within those boundaries fails regularly, then the boundaries start to restrict. "X" marks the spot, and the concentric circles mark increasing - or, in this case, decreasing - levels of trust and responsibility.2. Inherently distrust - in this philosophy, trust is earned. Boundaries are set tight, but those boundaries are loosened, and other responsibilities accumulated, when the person proves themself worthy. Again, "X" marks the spot.So, what is the best way to raise children? What is the best way to set expectations with employees? Those are difficult questions, and may vary by family and by personality.

In the Quipper household, we tend to use both methods; inherently distrust, but also pull back if we see backtracking for any reason. We give them assignments and other ways to prove that they are trustworthy given their age (i.e. physical and intellectual capabilities). If they pass the tests, then the boundaries expand. This expansion may be in the form of new freedoms or increased responsibility. If the children repeatedly prove that they can't handle existing responsibilities, even though they had succeeded before, we may pull back.

I have watched parents who inherently trust, and never pull back. This frustrates me because it looks more often as being done out of laziness than out of any plan on the part of the parents. With some parents, I never see an attempt to explain failure or disappointment to their kids, or to pull back (i.e. discipline) when repeated failure occurs.

At the office, though, an even different type of responsibility change can occur. Some core responsbilities may no longer fall into the expectations of an employee's current role. It looks something like this, where beginning responsibilities are replaced by newer responsibilities:I have seen this happen when senior programmers actually no longer do programming; instead, "programmer" is just part of the title, but the employee has different responsibilities. These responsibilities may include mentoring less accomplished programmers, reviewing their work, or designing new computer systems.

In the "job" of life, however, there are some responsibilities, or core values, that should never leave a child's or adult's area of responsibility. At least, I would hope not.


Taking care of business

The same two philosophies apply at the office, too. Recently, a new computer programmer was assigned to one of my projects. I am not his supervisor, but have to give him some direction relative to the tasks assigned to him. I quickly came to realize that his boss inherently trusted him on many fronts, and I found that the programmer was not as accomplished as was first thought.

I normally set expectations and grant trust first, but this scenario is making me rethink my position. Things aren't always as they appear, and it's better to play it safe than sorry. It's not that the "kid" is incapable; we expected too much of him, yet he hadn't been put in a position to prove himself. I have seen this in the past, and have even caused the situation a number of times. I've concluded that I'd rather put someone in a position to prove themself than set them up to fail.

Growing up and job promotions

How does this all apply to children that have been granted some freedoms and responsibilities, and to employees who believe they are ready to "move on" to a better job position? There are similarities here again, but there are also differences.

Promotions are a little more difficult to work with. Again, there are two philsophies: you promote someone into a position they've already proven they can do, or you promote into a position because there is nothing else for the person to prove in their current position. Trust me, they are not the same. Just because someone hits the ceiling in their current position does not mean they can handle things at the next level.

Promotions usually look like this:
You typically retain some of your current duties, but gain a whole new set of responsibilities. You also dispose of some of your prior responsibilities, as shown by the greyed and blacked out circles.

With our children, I don't see a "promotion" per se. As I mentioned earlier, there are some core responsibilities that never leave the child once they start growing up and earning more freedoms and responsibilities. So, with our children, I see more concentric circles emanating from the core, and not a situation where the center circle shifts.

I have learned valuable lessons in fatherhood, and recently during this employee situation. For me, at least, it is better for me to set solid expectations with my employees, start them on easily manageable responsibilities, and let them work up to more difficult responsibilities and greater freedoms. I expend more effort on a daily basis, but resolve problems quicker and give my staff a chance to succeed. At home, I start with tight boundaries, but expand them as my children pass those little tests that prove they are ready for more freedom and responsibility.