Why do the players have to sit out?

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

The New York Post
April 26, 2006 Wednesday
SECTION: All Editions; Pg. 82
HEADLINE: JASPER BIG 3 IN LIMBO
BYLINE: TIM SULLIVAN
LOAD-DATE: April 26, 2006

***Begin Quote***

Xavier, a sophomore guard from Pawtucket, R.I., who averaged 16.6 points this season, has a scholarship waiting for him at Providence if he’d like to transfer, sit out a season and play for his hometown Friars. The Big East might be too tough to turn down, but he is keeping all options open.

***End Quote***

It really not fair that the coach can change at will, and yet the players have to sit out a year if they transfer. It’s just rotten! Now, why doesn’t the coach have to sit out for a year?

Why do the players have to sit out?

At the very least, to compensate them for the “lost years” (i.e., for the time they invested in the departing coach who leaves them in the lurch), they should be allowed to play for some one else right away.


The CEO, the COO, and the CFO conspire to weenie the employees of a start up!

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/security/investigator/archives/008976.asp

***Begin Quote***

In several emails he outlined a plan where the company assets (intellectual property, equipment, etc) would be sold and transferred to the buying company. The employees "are not a transferable asset, nor are they essential to a successful IP transition. We are prepared to 'trickle' them out in groups during the transition period". In other emails to C-level executives at our company, he repeatedly fought off the CEO and COO desire for compensation packages for employees that had been around for at least one year of employment. The CFO spewed financial nonsense and bull$hit, however he was accurate to the penny on what each executive would receive as compensation. These guys were going to make millions. In a few of the last emails, the CEO and COO caved under the pressure and greed.

***End Quote***

For anyone who has NOT yet realized that the "rules of engagement" for employment, here is you wake up call.

While I personally deplore the actions that were supposedly taken, I have to admire when justice is served. There is no way, no how, that seekers should be deceived into working like a dog WITHOUT a just reward.

###


Professor Williams nails Oprah for minimum wage nonsense!

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49917

***Begin Quote***

Minimum wages can have a more insidious effect. In research for my book "South Africa's War Against Capitalism" (1989), I found that during South Africa's apartheid era, racist unions, who'd never admit blacks, were the major supporters of higher minimum wages for blacks. Gert Beetge, secretary of South Africa's avowedly racist Building Worker's Union, in response to contractors hiring black workers, said, "There is no job reservation left in the building industry, and in the circumstances I support the rate-for-the-job [minimum wages] as the second best way of protecting our white artisans." Racists recognized the discriminatory effects of mandated minimum wages.
 
***End Quote***

Dear Professor Williams,

As usual, spot on!

My own observation is that a raise in the minimum wage is an automatic pay increase for unions, government workers, and politicians!

I never get a raise due to minimum wage laws.

And, when I was running my own business (twice) where do I get my “minimum wage” from? I know that many a week I worked my tush off for zero income. Did I miss the memo of which “gummamint agenze” to submit my claim to? Interesting that because I formed my own business, I wasn’t eligible for unemployment “insurance” (another misnomer). If I could have kept all those “contributions” (nothing voluntary there), then I could have paid myself my minimum wage!

Any way just thought I’d chime in.

Thanks,
“student” John


“I vote small government. Every issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses.”

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

I've taken the liberty of reproducing Cloud's excellent advice. I have signed the Small Government pledge and I try never to miss a chance to toss an incumbent, defeat a school budget, nuke a proposition, or otherwise gum up the works.

http://www.centerforsmallgovernment.com/sgpledge.htm

***Begin Quote***

"Here's what the Small Government PledgeSM means:

I will vote for and support only those candidates who consistently vote for small government; who work to make government smaller than it is today. For candidates who have never served in office, I will vote only for those who campaign to make government smaller than it is today.

I will vote against and refuse to support every candidate who votes to sustain or enlarge today's Big Government – or campaigns for it.

I will vote in every federal, state, and local election. If necessary, I'll get an absentee ballot. I'll find out about the choices on my ballot – and make sure I always vote small government.

If there is no small government candidate on the ballot, I will either write in and vote for a small government candidate or leave the ballot blank for that office.

I will vote for every ballot initiative and referendum that shrinks the size, spending, taxes, scope, or power of today's Big Government.

I will vote against every ballot initiative, referendum, and bond that increases the size, spending, taxes, scope, or power of today's Big Government."

***End Quote***

AND here's the Cloud article that I thought was GREAT!

***Begin Quote***

IS VOTING UN-LIBERTARIAN? by Michael Cloud

A well-known libertarian scholar once told me:

“Voting is an act of force. Libertarians are opposed to force. Ergo, true libertarians don’t vote.”

His syllogism was, as H.L. Mencken wrote, “… simple, neat, and wrong.”

Why?

“War is simply the continuation of politics by other means,” wrote Carl von Clausewitz.

True, but libertarians recognize that the opposite is also true:

“Politics is war by other means.”

Voting is conflict by ballots, not bullets. Big Government is domination and looting by the victors. Voting is force.

But the argument misstates and misrepresents the libertarian principle.
Libertarians oppose the INITIATION of force. Libertarians recognize and endorse the right of self-defense.

For true libertarians, for champions of small government – voting is an act of self-defense.

I live by the Small Government Pledge:

“I vote small government. Every issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses.”

Every vote I cast is designed to dismantle, reduce, and remove Big Government programs and policies. At all levels of government: local, state, and federal.

Neither I, nor any other champion of small government votes to take our neighbors’ life, liberty, or property. We vote to reduce or stop Big Government aggression and plunder.

Voting to shrink government is an act of self-defense.

NON-voting is political pacifism.

And, for one who loves liberty, it is slow motion suicide.

But the political pacifists do not stop there. They insist that the rest of us surrender, too – stop voting in self-defense.

In 2002, Carla Howell and I put Question 1 on the Ballot in Massachusetts.
This Ballot Initiative would END our state income tax, put $9 Billion per year back in the hands of the men and women who earned it, and cut state government spending 39%.

Yet several ANTI-voting libertarians told us that Carla Howell and I are UN-libertarian, immoral, and evil for putting this to a vote. These paragons of libertarian principle told us that they refused to vote for it – because voting is force.

But the income tax is the initiation of force.

Voting to END the income tax is a vote to END the use of force. ENDING a tax is an act of self-defense.

We earned 881,738 votes to END the state income tax. 45.3% of the vote. In Massachusetts!

Would freedom have been better served if 881,738 voters had stayed home?

And wouldn’t that have made Ted Kennedy, Mitt Romney, and John Kerry giddy?

Anti-voting libertarians are the people who attack Richard Rider, tax cut activist, for opposing tax increases and tax bonds in San Diego.

Politics is war by other means. Demanding that libertarians cease voting is like urging Colonial Soldiers to desert George Washington’s Army in the winter of 1776.

In that hard winter, many American soldiers did desert. Tom Paine sought to rally and inspire those hard-pressed and discouraged soldiers who remained when he wrote in “The Crisis”:

“These are times that try men’s souls: The summer soldier and sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”

Aren’t you grateful that our colonial soldiers refused pacifism and desertion?

Because of their efforts over 230 years ago, you and we have the opportunity to move freedom forward.

[This is the first of several rebuttals of false libertarian arguments against and objections to voting. Moral and practical.]

***End Quote***


INITIALISMS: YMMV

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

YMMV

Your Mileage May Vary!


FUP a turkey’s question about following up with a hiring manager … (Answer gently!)

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

***Begin Quote***

Tomorrow morning marks the seventh day since, through a combination of your kind efforts, I was able to put my candidate information in front of XXXX for the YYYY position at ZZZZ.  Thus far I have received no responses from either XXXX or YYYY HR to my emails, and so I plan to contact XXXX tomorrow via phone.  I will call him at around 7 AM Eastern time (4 AM my time) and my approach will be "just wanted to make sure you had received my information and to answer any questions you might have."  I don't want to appear over-eager, but at the same time I think I have waited too long in the past for responses from potential employers, and want to avoid that mistake here.  If you have any comments, I would be very interested to hear them.  Once again, your assistance is deeply appreciated.  

***End Quote***

My suggestion, while it may be too late, is three fold.

(1) Prepare by writing your message. Script it out. Prepare for voice mail. If you get voice mail, then you won’t sound like your disorganized, drunk (why else would you be up at 4am to call him – he knows where you live), or whining. When you deliver your message, don’t read it. It’ll sound read. AND, deliver it standing up, smiling, but not yelling. Quiet enthusiasm.

(2) Offer to help in any way that you can. Try to have something to offer. Commiserate with administrative systems that make it hard to get things done since he directed you to the internal HR site. Tell a tiny story.

(3) Leave your cell phone number at the front of the message. Clearly. And slowly. Tell him that you want the job and it’s NOT necessary for him to call you back. (He may have nothing to offer. I know at Comcast all contact MUST be done by HR. And, he may have to waste time calling you when he could be advancing the ball.)

My thoughts FWIW,
John

***Begin Quote***

Actually, your email arrived just as I was leaving him a voicemail. I hit Cancel and got out of there. :) I will make a script later this morning (I'm going back to sleep) and contact him from work (via my cell phone, walking outside – that'll force me to stand up, although I may get some looks walking around with a big smile.) Can I clarify your "story" point on suggestion two? I take your meaning as "I understand you may be waiting for HR to process the paperwork of your applicants – my present company's the same way" or similar.

Thanks again for the suggestions – the better my message to him, the more likely I'll get an affirmative response.

***End Quote***

Exactly. You want to try to establish rapport. A common foe is always useful. The vagaries of corporate HR, the Post Office, ISPs in general, or even the green meanies. You need a common foe to bind him to you. "Heck, he's a great guy, understands that everyone has problems, and I can work with him." That's the key hump. Make him like you. You know a Sally Field moment. "You like me. You really like me." Now I'm a generally disagreeable sort so I have to work extra hard at that. And being an injineer by trade, I try to create a "make me likeable" process. Tell a clean joke that a third grader would "laff" at. Establish a common enemy. Help by giving him some topical current information like the PDF I've attached. Change yourself from a resume to a person. May not get you the job, but if it's a close call, who would you pick? The faceless resume or the person. IMHO YMMV, john

###


FUP on age discrimintation

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

QUESTION> Graduation year for university on resume.  Yes or no?

Put it on. Your age is no real secret. Sell thru the objection.

See Dave’s blog this week about age discrimination, http://execunet.blogspot.com/2006/04/selling-experience_24.html and my comment.

Then, “pull up your Big Girl undies” and compete. No sense making an issue out of it; make a value out of it. “I’m not old; I’m experienced; You can benefit ‘cause I’m house broken and I made all my mistakes when some one else was paying for them!”.

RETORT: Need the job!

Well, I’ll quibble. SunTse always advises things like “When weak, appear strong. When strong, appear weak.” You may need the bucks. But you never need THAT job. I would suggest that there are certain moral, ethical, and personal boundaries that you should NEVER cross. The casting couch is a great example of a line that should never be crossed. I also firmly believe that the appropriate deity (i.e., Jesus; the Intelligent Designer; the Universe; the Flying Spaghetti Monster) will always provide what we need. The famous Wayne Dyer admonition applies: “you'll believe it when you see it OR you’ll see it when you believe it”. His formulation is that you visualize what you want and the Universal Soul will supply it. When the student is ready, the teacher will appear. Now, I don’t believe that one should sit on one’s butt and wait for the Publisher’s Clearing House Lottery van to arrive. But there is anecdotal evidence in my own life that this has some truth to the idea that “lucky breaks” occur. Funny how the harder I work at something, the more breaks go my way. So, let’s agree that you don’t need THAT particular job.

ALSO, I’d admonish you never even to think of the HR people as morons. It may be flip, but I have seen people sink their own ship with a loose lip. While there are a few “bad” people, (in my personal trek, I have met FOUR out of a grazillion.) by an large, people, while they may be: dumb as a stump, overworked, underpaid, overwhelmed by volume, completely inept, or just plain disagreeable, they are the Intelligent Designer’s creation and as such worthy of our respect. When I get totally in a knot, I ask myself things like: would you do that job, what problems can I help that person overcome, or what lesson is the Universe trying to teach me here. I get a lot of lessons in humility and patience. I need them because I’m not very humble or patient. Lessons are repeated until the student learns.

===


%d bloggers like this: