 |
Comments |
|
 | Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 23:11:55 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: BrianS
Coup de mockery
Obama, Hillary et al, along with most of the MSM are condemning the actions of the Honduras govt as a coup. WSJ and IBD tell quite a different story though:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623220955866301.html
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=331168876783926 |
|
| Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 23:33:10 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: BrianS
Whereas here is what the AP reports:
WASHINGTON â€" President Barack Obama on Monday declared that the United States still considers Manuel Zelaya to be the president of Honduras and assailed the coup that forced him into exile as "not legal," widening the chasm between the Central American nation and much of the rest of the world.
"It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections," Obama said in the Oval Office after meeting with Colombian President Alviro Uribe. "The region has made enormous progress over the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions in Central America and Latin America. We don't want to go back to a dark past."
Leaders from across the Western Hemisphere and beyond called for return to power of Zelaya, who was arrested Sunday morning by soldiers who stormed his residence and forced him into exile. The country now has another president appointed by its Congress, Roberto Micheletti, who insisted that Zelaya was removed legally by the courts and Congress for violating Honduras' constitution and attempting to extend his own rule.
As the military takeover roiled a region that Obama just visited in April, he sought a political balance of showing firmness without boxing himself in.
Obama said the U.S. must always "stand with democracy" even if doesn't like the results of elections.
But he was careful to cast the crisis as not one that the United States must solve alone, and he did not explicitly demand that Zelaya be returned to power. Rather, he said the U.S. would work with international partners on the less-defined goal of trying to "resolve this in a peaceful way."
The president also was careful when asked about the underlying conflict in Honduras â€" the referendum Zelaya had called in defiance of Honduras' courts and Congress. Zelaya's opponents saw it as a way for him to ultimately stay in power beyond his one-term limit. The vote never took place.
Obama said such matters are up to each country to decide, stirring up echoes of his comments on Iran, whose electoral crisis has grabbed world attention.
"What's ultimately most important is that the people feel a sense of legitimacy and ownership, and that this is not something imposed on them from the top, that it does not involve manipulations of the electorate or, you know, rigging of the electoral process or repression of opposition voices," Obama said Monday.
...
And leaders wondered nervously about the broader implications of a hostile takeover that officials from the U.S. and other countries could not prevent.
"As we move forward, all parties have a responsibility to address the underlying problems that led to yesterday's events," Clinton said.
Coups were common in Central America for four decades reaching back to the 1950s, but Sunday's ouster was the first military power grab in Latin America since a brief, failed 2002 coup against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. It was the first in Central America since military officials forced President Jorge Serrano of Guatemala to step down in 1993 after he tried to dissolve Congress and suspend the constitution. |
|
| Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 23:47:17 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: John Harris
E-mail: John.harris00(at)gmail.com
Now there is a guy named, Paul where I work, now Paul has been given enough rope that he will soon hang himself. He's always been protected by other people, he is your classic Peter Keating...only if Peter was an idiot.
As an example, it takes me five minutes to place an order though our order system. It'll take me about seven minutes to refill an ink-cartridge. I can ring up people in life very quickly.
Paul takes about 25 to 30 minutes, if we're lucky; to place an order. Takes him around 20 minutes to fill an ink-cartridge, and he backs up the line waiting to pay (no other associate has this problem; even new people.)
I personally think I should ignore him in anything that doesn't concern work, I don't like being around him, he asks stupid questions; hell he even starts sentences with 'Question.....I have a customer that wants to refill ink.' and yes, I know that's not a question, but that's what he says.
My question is if I should feel any guilt in knowing that he's going to be fired soon enough; he seems to think he's made of Teflon. I feel something, I want to call it pity, but it's not for him being fired, but as to how someone can be so disconnected from reality. Our ASM wants him gone, viewing him as a waste of time, and money.
One other nail in the coffin, OfficeMax sells replacement deals, MaxAssurances, and yes we make about .50c off of the lower end ones, perhaps 3 bucks on the mid ones.
Now as an example, today I spoke with a lady in staplers, I helped her select a unit, told her about the replacement plan; I was wrong on the price though of the plan (I said 2.99; it was 5.99.)
She was rung up by Paul, and he put his name in the field, rung up the sale, and 'saved' (his words) the maxie.
OfficeMax has a standing policy that the first person to talk to a customer gets the maxie;
I don't care about the money, but I do care when maxies are tied to our hours. I am going to speak with a manager about this tomorrow; but I think this may also be the final nail in the head with our ASM, he's built a case and waiting for one more thing to pop up to fire Paul.
Is it right to make a point out of this, which may end up getting him fired, or would I be better off just letting it go and leaving him to hang himself slowly (within the next two months from what I've heard.) Should I tell him, hey you might want to start looking for a job, or should I just leave him be, and let the chips fall where they may.
Thank you in advance.
John. |
|
| Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 3:20:23 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Khartoum
E-mail: track2me(at)gmail.com
URL: http://khartoum-khartoum.blogspot.com/
Could somebody point me to any good Objectivist literature on the Patriot Act?
Thanks! |
|
| Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 4:59:51 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Roger
Another question about the workplace, this time from John. Is it coincidence, or is it a trend or pattern beginning, for whatever reason?
John, I can tell you this: Paul's relationship to the company and to his manager is not your concern. Maybe he should be fired, but that's not your call.
That said, you have every right to talk to your manager if Paul's behavior is affecting your job, as long as you do it rationally, with facts and not emotions. All you really can do is continue performing your job to the best of your ability. Short-term, you may find particular workplace situations unfair or frustrating (whether Paul is involved or not), but in the long run, the Pauls of this world are not important, and you'll succeed as much as you're able.
You don't need to feel guilty. |
|
| Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 7:17:24 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Bryan
E-mail: roarke01(at)juno.com
John
I agree with Roger.
I am a mid-level executive in a company and even at my level, you can only control a small fraction of what goes on around you. You will always have people in your workplace that will not be at your level or ability of ambition. Outright incompetence is found out, and if you continue to apply yourself and provide high quality work for your employer that is what will be noticed. Stealing your commissions is another matter. Document and communicate this information to your boss, do not confront your coworker that will only damage you in the eyes of your boss when considering you for a future promotion.
I once had a coworker in my past life that I relied on for information to do my job. We would meet, put a production plan into place, and then he would change his mind a couple of weeks down the road and deny that our agreement took place. I began to write down all the details of our conversations in a notebook at each and every meeting and getting his agreement that my interpretation was correct. He tried to repeat past behaviors, but now he was stuck when trying to back out. It became obvious to his boss that he was unable to perform his duties and was eventually removed. My reputation only improved.
When I train Managers in production facilities, I tell them to follow the "10/80/10" rule when looking for talent. Ten percent of the people are actively trying to cheat the system - they want to get as much out of the company as they can with as little effort as possible. Find them and fire them as soon as you can. Eighty percent of people are happy doing what they are doing, and have no ambition to advance. Give them the support and tools they need to do so and leave it at that. Ten percent of the people are actively trying to improve their lot in life. They want to get better and want more responsibiltiy. Find these people and spend your efforts helping them to do so. It benefits you and the organization greatly in the long run.
You want to be known as one of the ten percent in the eyes of management. Focus on that and you will forget about incompetent coworkers, they will be of no concern. |
|
| Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 8:35:11 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: JR
I AM JOHN GALT |
|
| Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 8:41:22 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: JR
ON A MORE SERIOUS NOTE, I AM VERY EXCITED TO FIND OTHERS WHO HAVE READ AYN'S WORKS. I FEAR SOMETIMES THAT THE MESSAGE HAS BEEN LOST. |
|
| Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 8:42:56 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Dave B
E-mail: Blankenstein0582(at)aol.com
On the lighter side, I would like to "wish" you all a great Independence Day! If any of you are able to attend a tea party rally (protest?), I hope to see some video about it here or on youtube if at all possible. Since I will be unable to attend any of them, I have to settle for experiencing it vicariously through others. :-( Oh well, I'll just kick back with a cold one --- \~/ --- and watch for your reports on these events. Thanks in advance! |
|
| Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 9:19:30 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Arthor Bearing
E-mail: arthorbearing(at)gmail.com
URL: http://arthorbearing.com
http://arthorbearing.com/2009/07/criminal-law-is-unnecessary/
First lines:
"An Illustrative Hypothetical Question to Feed Your Thoughts
Which would be a more effective deterrent against crime: a well-armed populace of people willing to assert their freedoms, or the threat of governmental punishment? After your knee-jerk response, whichever it is, take a second to really think it over because it’s a close question." |
|
| Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 10:12:42 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Bryan,
A qualification I would like to make from your point about the 10/80/10 rule comes from the "job search" training my former employer paid for for me when they abolished my job category and let me go. They talked there about primary work motivations, among which were managerial competence (the drive to exercise skill and judgment in making the best use of other people's work) and technical competence (the drive to exercise skill and judgment in directly performing a task yourself) . . . along with other drives such as wanting to start something new or wanting work that doesn't interfere with your pursuit of some nonwork goal.
Now, their description of the "technical competence" type included the trait of liking to do actual physical and/or intellectual tasks as well as possible, but regarding managing or supervising other people as unavoidable tedium that goes with getting those tasks done, not as something rewarding in itself. And I was struck by that, because that's how I've always felt about the matter. I deliberately made choices at work that avoided my getting onto the managerial track, even though they limited my chances of promotion. But I don't consider that to be a lack of ambition. I was eager to learn how to do the actual work of copy editing better, and I enjoyed training other people in it and teaching a course on English grammar for the other copy editors; I just wasn't eager for a "promotion" that would shift me from copy editing to managing people. I respect people who can do that, and see the value of their work, but I don't want to be one of them.
That's one of the peculiarities of the American corporate structure. It actually seems that management theory recognizes that a lot of people are differently motivated. But the reward structure is based on the idea that the best reward you can give someone is to turn them into a manager, and on viewing people to whom that's not a reward but a cost as "unambitious." Perhaps because, almost unavoidably, the reward structure is shaped by managers, most of whom got into that position because they value managerial competence, and so it's natural for them to think first of suitable rewards for their own motivational pattern. Or perhaps not; I've never been a manager, so I don't know how managers actually think about this. But it always seemed something of a paradox to me. |
|
| Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 11:40:03 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: John Harris
E-mail: John.Harris00 at Gmail DOTlcom
Thank you both, Roger and Bryan.
Roger - yea, Its a sign; I need to find a better job.
John |
|
| Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 12:15:06 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: Bryan
William
Thank you for your comments. I interpret your post as just a different perspective on the same choice. My apologies if anything you read about staying in a particular discipline as a lack of ambition. It's not.
I started out my career as a Microbiologist, and was very good at what I did. But I remember one day I was staring at a set of samples and wondered how many times I had performed this exact same test in the last year. Did I want to keep doing that? That was when I decided to do something else. If I had stayed, I could have advanced in other areas within the lab, and became an expert and published papers or identified new rapid methods. That would have been a perfectly valid choice. Now, if my company had chosen to outsource the micro testing, my skill set would not have protected me from a layoff, no matter how knowledgable I was. That is the risk of specialization.
I chose to step over the line and become a Manager. Once I did, my original skill set was no longer helpful. I had to develop a new set of skills. I still work in the technical world, but now I need to be able to covey things to people beyond the lab. The people management piece is challenging, yes. In every group of employees you always have one that you wish didn't work for you. But, you have others that show promise, and can do great things. It is a great source of pride for me to help them develop and increase their range and influence. Perhaps the greatest personal satisfaction I get from my job is related to developing strategy - helping my company reach greater levels. I could never do that in the lab.
Enough concretes, let's pull back to principles. Look at how this relates to John and his incompetent, teflon-coated coworker. Whatever you do in life, be the best damn person you can be at it. Stick to your guns, work hard and do the best you can. Someone will notice. Don't worry about the other guy, you can only control yourself. At one point in The Fountainhead, Peter Keating was very successful and Howard Raork was toiling away in a quarry. I know who I would rather be....... |
|
| Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 14:28:49 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Mel McGuire
Newsweek, July 1 2009
"The Bolivarian Brain Drain
Hugo Chavez and his allies are tightening their grips, forcing the intelligentsia to leave in droves."
I knew people were leaving but I had no idea that the exodus was this extensive.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/204835/page/1 |
|
| Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 15:04:10 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Bryan,
I think we're basically in agreement. I mainly wanted to make sure that you weren't defining "getting better" overly narrowly. But it doesn't sound as if you are. |
|
| Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 16:34:48 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: Mike Hardy
E-mail: (my last name) (at) math.umn.edu
Diana, did I understand correctly a couple of months or so ago as expressing an aversion to delegation of legislative power?
My understanding is that the term "regulation" in this country is often taken to mean enactments of administrative agencies to which a legislature (either Congress or a state legislature) has granted regulatory power.
A couple questions come to mind:
Suppose the constitution of a state says that the legislative power shall be vested in the state legislature. The legislature then passes a law saying local councils, elected by a vote of the people of a municipality or a county, shall have power to pass ordinances on specified topics, which will have the force of law within the municipality or county. That's delegation, but it differs from what are typically called administrative agencies, in that the member of local councils are democratically elected by the citizenry. How does that fit into an aversion to delegation?
(I'm not 100% sure, but that is my understanding of the power of local councils in (most of?) the USA to legislate. I'd be surprised if details don't vary from state to state.)
Now suppose the state legislature passes a law saying the state Department of Transporation may decide speed limits, locations of stop signs, locations of "NO LEFT TURN" signs, and maybe power to decide which other sorts of routine regulatory signs will exist (so that Department might later invent a "No Parking Cars In Bicycle Paths Between 3:00 and 7:00 PM" sign, to be posted at such locations as it may decide; or a "Bicycles Only" sign or a "Car Pools Only" sign, etc.). (Now you might argue that roads should be privately owned, etc., but that's really a separate issue; suppose the law is intended to remain in effect as long as there are public roads, which may or may not get abolished in the next session of the legislature....) Things like that seems like prudent efficiency, not like threats to establish tyranny. What would be your thoughts on that? |
|
| Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 22:56:53 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: BrianS
"Now you might argue that roads should be privately owned, etc., but that's really a separate issue"
Actually, it is not a separate issue at all, for your example is *not* one of regulation. It is one of property rights - specifically the delegated right of property to the government.
Even in a proper system of government, there will be some property which is 'public' - be it things like the White House, or jet fighters, or police cars. And the government will necessarily proscribe how that property is used - within the limits of the authority granted to it by the citizens. (Visiting hours to the WH for example - or restrictions on who may fly or drive the aforementioned vehicles, etc).
In that respect, what you described is simply a proper exercise of property rights (though in a proper system of government roads indeed would not properly be 'public' property). They are not regulation, any more than the sign "Shoes and Shirt required" in a private restaurant is a regulation.
Regulation is a violation of rights. Not just of property rights, but of ALL rights. Regulation is the government dictating what an individual may or may not do with his OWN person or property. By means of regulation, government treats both people and their property as ITS own property - property an individual does not use by RIGHT but only by the PERMISSION of that government.
Put simply, regulation is the instrument of fascism - where the individual holds title to his life and property, but where control of both is vested in the State. |
|
| Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 10:15:26 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Brian,
If we are talking about residential access roads, then I think the question of their being public property is a bit more complex. There are several different cases.
(1) An unimproved road can come into being by residents simply choosing to follow a certain route. If the general population of an area follow such a route, then being able to do so is part of their freedom of movement. If someone then builds on the road, blocking their movement, he has taken away some of the liberty that they formerly possessed. This is not the same as occupying an area of open wilderness than anyone might happen to move through; the road was regularly used by all those people.
The ancient Romans distinguished between private property, which the owner could permanently occupy and use and no one else could use, and common property, which anyone was free to use but no one was free to permanently occupy. A proper government is capable of defining and enforcing rules of common property. Consider, for a different example, riparian rights, under which the people along a stream have rights to withdraw some of its water for private use, but not to dam or divert the entire stream, and there are objective laws regulating water use.
(2) Improvements to a road raise more complex issues. Such improvements need to be paid for, and if they are paid for, they presumably belong to someone.
The usual American approach is to have the government make the improvements and pay for them with its revenues . . . in our present system, with tax money. But that puts the government in the role of an economic actor, rather than of providing a legal framework for economic actors; and this is both not something government is best suited to do, and a potential source of conflicts.
On the other hand, if a private firm simply takes possession of the road, improves it, and charges fees for its use, you have the prospect of a resident who formerly moved freely on the road being denied the ability to do so without paying. That's a loss of former liberty of movement. There is also the prospect of a resident being denied the use of a road entirely; I don't see this as a common or likely thing, but, for example, a road owner wanting to acquire land to build an extension of a road might deny the landowner's access to pressure him into selling, amount to a kind of "eminent domain." Letting a commonly used road by acquired as private property by an entrepreneur thus is a material loss to the established users.
It would be possible to treat a developed road as private property, but grant all the users easements permitting its use. I specify "easements" because these are not contracts, which can be revoked by either party; they are property rights . . . if I own a lot on a street, and you own a lot behind mine and cross over mine to reach the street, then over time you will acquire a legal right to use my property for that specific purpose, which will be attached to the bundle of other rights that go with your property. But it's hard to see how a road's owner could make any money if all the residents had easements!
Another approach might be to do what the German government did long ago with river rights in the Ruhr Valley: Set up a corporation for each road or network of roads, with all the occupants of property accessed by those roads being granted shares. The corporation would have the right to assess its shareholders for expenses of maintaining and improving the roads; in return, it would grant them the right to use the road, and the right to vote on policy for the road. Of course, in a sense, this is what government owned roads are, but separating the function of managing the road from the function of government properly understood would avoid certain problems.
(3) In a new housing development, the roads would be built at the same time as the houses, and could be included in a kind of condominium arrangement. Alternatively, the roads could be privately owned by a business firm. But to get anyone to move in, it would be necessary to ensure access; so purchase of a lot would need to include purchase of an option to use the roads, possibly at a fixed fee not to be raised without the consent of the property owners . . . which isn't all that different from having a condomium agreement.
(4) For long distance roads connecting city centers, such as toll roads and freeways, the same issues don't arise. There's no obvious reason that these couldn't be private property pure and simple, just like railroads or canals. |
|
| Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 11:32:02 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: Rowboat
"After your knee-jerk response, whichever it is, take a second to really think it over ..."
Yep, that'll invite a lot of response ... |
|
| Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 13:17:58 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: BrianS
"If we are talking about residential access roads, then I think the question of their being public property is a bit more complex."
I disagree with many of the premises you present. However, those premises are not pertinent to the point I was making, unless you are claiming what you identify as "common" property is actually *private* property over which the government grants its owner 'permission' to use in ways IT proscribes. |
|
| Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 14:44:18 mst
Comment ID: #21
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Brian,
I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble parsing "*private* property over which the government grants its owner 'permission' to use in ways IT proscribes." I just can't figure out the concept it's intended to convey. In particular, can you clarify what each occurrence of "it" refers to? |
|
| Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 15:45:43 mst
Comment ID: #22
Name: BrianS
William
"private property over which the government grants [the property owner] 'permission' to use [his own property] in ways [the government] proscribes"
Does that help or is the statement still unclear? |
|
| Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 17:49:05 mst
Comment ID: #23
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Brian,
I think I understand the wording, but I'm not sure. Do you literally mean "proscribes"? That is, the government is granting the property owner permission to use his own property in ways that the government forbids? That sounds contradictory on the face of it. Unless this is exceptio probat regulam in casis non exceptis (the exception establishes the rule in the cases that are not excepted). I'd find it more understandable if the word were "prescribes," but I hesitate to assume that you mixed up those two words.
In any case, let's apply this to the common road over which people travel. By the legal concept I'm referring to, it's precisely not true that that road has a property owner. It's not private property; it's not even government property, not in the sense in which a police car is government property. And no permission is being granted; people who travel on the road do so as a right, as part of their right of liberty, and not by permission. So I think this is not the same case as what you're talking about.
Can you give an example of some case where the government does what you are talking about? |
|
| Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 19:46:58 mst
Comment ID: #24
Name: BrianS
"Do you literally mean "proscribes"?"
Oops, my bad: 'prescribes' is indeed what I meant to write.
"By the legal concept I'm referring to, it's precisely not true that that road has a property owner."
Ok - so it is NOT private property. That's all I was trying to confirm. That being the case, as I indicated, it is thus not pertinent to the point I was making about the concept 'regulation'. |
|
| Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 19:49:19 mst
Comment ID: #25
Name: BrianS
"Can you give an example of some case where the government does what you are talking about? "
Sorry, forgot about this one:
Zoning laws
FDA regulations
EPA regulations
OSHA
etc
I think you get the point. |
|
| Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 21:22:41 mst
Comment ID: #26
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Brian, Yes, that's right: "Ok - so it is NOT private property. . . . That being the case, as I indicated, it is thus not pertinent to the point I was making about the concept 'regulation'." The only confusion was proscribe/prescribe.
I was responding, instead, to your parenthetical comment that "in a proper system of government roads indeed would not properly be 'public' property." I know that you made that point in passing, but I thought it worth a comment in its own right. But I think I've explained my view of it, so unless you want to address it further, I'll let it drop. |
|
| Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 22:46:40 mst
Comment ID: #27
Name: BrianS
William
Ah. You didn't make it clear you were trying to talk about something *outside* the context of the discussion of regulations. So I took your comments to be a part of that discussion. I see now that they weren't - which clears things up mightily. :) |
|
| Friday, July 3, 2009 at 7:01:10 mst
Comment ID: #28
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Brian,
I see in retrospect that I didn't mark "this is a shift to a related topic" sufficiently clearly. I'll endeavor to be more explicit if I make such a topic shift in future. |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
Comments
