PRODUCTIVITY: when you have and use SOPs

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

http://www.safecastle.blogspot.com

Refuge

Find peace of mind in quiet observation and prudent, methodical readiness planning. Through preparedness, the resilient core of our nation enhances our national collective strength and security. We encourage such resolve and endurance within the “Refuge.”

Friday, July 13, 2007
How to Survive (Almost) Anything

***Begin Quote***

For example, in May 1989, Lynn Hill, the winner of more than 30 international rock-climbing titles, was preparing to climb what she called a “relatively easy” route in Buoux, France. She threaded her rope through her harness, but then, instead of tying her knot, she stopped to put on her shoes. While she was tying them, she talked with another climber, then returned to climb the rock face. “The thought occurred to me that there was something I needed to do before climbing,” she later recalled, but, “I dismissed this thought.” She climbed the wall, and when she leaned back to rappel to the ground, she fell 72 feet (22 meters), her life narrowly saved by tree branches. In her case, more training would not have helped. In fact, experience contributed to her accident. She had created a very efficient model for tying her rope to her harness. She could do it without thinking. So the act of tying her shoes may have been similar enough to tying her rope that it allowed her to reach the unconscious conclusion that her rope was tied, even while leaving a slight residue of doubt.

***End Quote***

PPPPPP!

SOP?

The reason to have an Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is to prevent blunders. I had an Engineering Professor (Brother Austin Barry) who used to rant: “A mistake is putting mustard on your hamburger; an error comes about in any measurement; a blunder is when you make a dumb mistake.”

How true!

An SOP allows one to repeat the same steps in sequence so as to prevent blunders. Mistakes and Errors will happen. How your SOP allows you to catch them before those things kill or maim you is the key point.

Productivity is ensured when you have and use SOPs.

imho

(I think Brother Barry would agree saying “finally you listened four decades later”!)

# # # # #


INTERESTING: Why, or how, I think Ron Paul could win

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

FROM A RECENT EMAIL

>I did just read an article on that asked- Can Ron Paul Really get the Republican Nomination? Interesting article and an interesting guy.

I say “yes”. For those not educated in gooferment skool, the Republican Party up to Bush41 was the party of “settling wars started by the D’s”. The Taft (after Ohio-ian Robert Taft) Wing of the Republic Party was the fiscally-sound morally-pure non-interventionist part of the Party. As opposed to the Rockefeller Wing (Nelson Rockefeller), that was the fiscal-looser socially-liberal interventionist foreign policy side. When Goldwater was badly beaten by LBJ, on the war issue, where that “nuclear commercial” misrepresenting where he stood on the war, (despite the fact that the D’s expanded the Vietnam disaster), the Taft wing was pretty badly beaten up. Ron Paul is from that Taft tradition.

Can he win?

The nomination, quite possibly. He energizes the Taft wing. He’s alone as being solidly against the war, unlike all the R’s and D’s.

He wins the nomination if the people really support him. The power brokers in the Republican party are, at their heart, greedy men. Is it better to be on the winning side of a potentially small government guy who will need you to get anything done. OR, on the losing side, waiting for your turn at the trough in 4, 8, or 12 years? I think if he looks like a winner, they’ll take the Ron Paul side that bet.

The Presidency is a better possibility. Assuming he gets the Republican nomination.

The war may split the D’s vote.

The fiscal discipline of Ross Perot brought out 30% of the vote (20M votes) which represented a substantial part of those who never vote. About 10% R’s, 10% D’s, and 10% of the never voting.

If you you look at the eligible to vote as the whole population (i.e., 100%), about half don’t vote. The D’s get about 50% of the 50% that do vote so they have 25%. The R’s get about 40% of the 50% that do vote so they have 20%. If the D’s split on the war, they could give RP 12.5% and say Hillary 12.5%. If the R’s split, it will be into into the Tafts and the Rockafellers. The Taft R’s should give Ron Paul their whole 10%. The Rockefeller R’s should split 5% to RP and 5% for Hillary. The unwashed 50% are awakened to come out and vote in the same proportion as Perot that give RP say 16%. That gives him 12.5+10+5+16 = 43.5% versus Hillary 17.5% on the high side. If the D’s don’t split it’s RP 10+5+16=31% to Hillary 25%. That doesn’t take into account that Hillary has the highest negatives ever seen (i.e., will people come out just to vote against her?).

> I’m still not sure why he doesn’t just run as an independent and forgo the Republican Party altogether.

As a Republican candidate, unlike when he ran as a libertarian, there’s no “wasted vote” argument. The “wasted vote” argument is a Democratic Party tactic. In a three way race, Ron Paul elects Hillary. Just as Perot elected Clinton. Perot was a democrat before he ran as an independent. The fix was in.

You can see the same scenario setting up now with Bloomberg. He’s a RINO like Perot. He is in title a Republican mayor of a very liberal NYC. He would have ran as a democrat but was block by the Democratic Party Bosses. Since he was the only chance that the Republic Party had at the mayorship, they rolled over an gave it to him. Now, with the Presidential election coming, the Democratic Party can use this “useful idiot” (who is a very smart fellow; little nuts; but a determined veteran of Wall Street. Who I met on two occasions.) to “Perot” the Presidential election.

In a McCRomneyGulliani – Hillary race, Hillary’s high negative might elect a “hold your nose” Republican. Throw a RINO Bloomberg in like a Perot and she wins in a heartbeat! It’s not even close.

>

But, if the Republicans nominate Ron Paul, that RINO Bloomberg strategy does nothing for the Democrats. As a matter of fact, Ron Paul is “deal breaker”. Take all the common wisdom and toss it out the window. He’s a straight shooter with a bullet proof voting record. And, if he energizes just three components to vote for him — the disaffected non-voters, the anti war Democrats, and the fiscally conservative Republicans — then hello, it’s a landslide that will eclipse the all past ones. It could easily be a popular sweep that would unify the country. In 2000 was Bush 271 electors with 50M votes versus Gore 266 electors with 51M votes. I’d predict Ron Paul runs the table with 450 electors leaving Hillary CA=54 + NY=33 for 87 electors. The popular vote would be even worse imho, when the silent majority comes out. Ron Paul 75M, Hillary 25M.

It’s possible. It’s about a candidate who breaks all the molds, rules of thumbs, and past precedents. If he can energizes the anti-war D’s, the fiscal conservative R’s, and get the disaffected to come vote, then he’s the President.

Now watch for the dirty tricks, because neither side — D’s or R’s — wants this racket to end. It will end. The only question is if it can be a “soft landing” with a Ron Paul Presidency, or a “harder landing” when all these “problem” chickens come home to roost.

# # # # #


RANT: One too many “departments”

Monday, July 30, 2007

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski187.html

The Good News Is Everywhere!
by Karen Kwiatkowski

*** begin quote ***

This disappointment in, fear of and disgust for our bloated government, its impositions, its arrogance, and its outrageous incompetence and criminality were once shared by only a few. Today it is shared by the majority of Americans who intuitively understand that government words are lies, government performance is a sham, and government agencies and bureaucrats are incompetent, lazy, and often criminal. We complain privately, we subterraneously share cartoons, we think back to how it once was, and forward, to how it might someday be.

*** end quote ***

Well, it is humorous to see ordinary people gripe about the gooferment. Of course, I am always quick to either put a burr under their saddle or irritate the sore a little more. :-) I’ve been rubbed raw for several decades now.

Just on the surface, I like to ask people to explain why we need a “Department of Defense” and “Department of Homeland Security”. Doesn’t that sound like one too many “departments” to you? On Wall Street, there would one whole redundant hierarchy on the street looking for work. But, after all, this is the gooferment we are talking about.

# # # # #


PRODUCTIVITY: A “good” decision is

Monday, July 30, 2007

http://www.survivalblog.com/2007/07/survival_planningmore_than_jus.html

Survival Planning–More Than Just Gear and a “To Do” List, by Ray

***Begin Quote***

Decision making is critical in determining what actions to take to move you closer to a particular sub-objective or your ultimate goal. All decisions are based on the probability of a favorable outcome, but that probability is rarely, if ever, 100%. Even a slam-dunk, no-brainer decision has some slight chance of failure. The validity of a choice can be measured as those choices with the highest probability of a positive outcome, but even those have a tangible risk of turning out badly, and thus not being ultimately “correct.” Poker players call it getting “cracked”, when a strong, high probability hand is still beaten by the luck of the draw. A decision maker should understand that no decision is guaranteed to produce a positive result. Setting the expectation for yourself that even well thought-out decisions will be 100% successful is the road to disappointment and frustration. This is because decisions have variable dimensions, most of which are beyond the average person’s ability to control or even be fully aware of. The validity of a given choice is a function of the available data, context, and time. A valid decision is the best one you can make, right now, with the available information. Five minutes (heck, 30 seconds) from now a different choice may be better. But realize you will never have perfect, complete, and timely data, and that’s assuming that no one else is actively interacting with the situation, changing it and invalidating your information, or actively generating/feeding disinformation in some form. You will bring some level of bias to you we interpret the given dataset, as do your information sources; this works against our being able to form the proper context for a decision. And all factors are in flux, changing constantly; and implementing a choice once made takes some measure of time, making the clock an enemy. A good decision making process has to exist in the here and now, and be forward looking. You must avoid self recrimination and the tendency to doubt after something bad has happened; past choices are in the past, and useful only for how they inform future decisions. Focus on your goal, and how you get from your present location/situation (the here and now) to there (your future goal.)

***End Quote***

Take wisdom where ever you find it.

I urge you to use the waterline standard. Above the water line, fail quickly. Below the waterline, take your time and make the best decision possible.

Now we have an additional meme here: A “good” decision is the best one you can make, right now, with the available information.

# # # # #


MONEY: taxation distorts the individual’s finances

Monday, July 30, 2007

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/guillory10.htm

Thrift and Liberty
by Gil Guillory

l***Begin Quote***

Taxes. Not only is taxation perhaps the most evil institution left on earth, now that chattel slavery is virtually extinct, taxation distorts the individual’s finances. We are all familiar with the social engineering in the US Federal Income Tax, with credits and deductions for all manner of activities the state officially encourages or discourages. But much worse is the attack on capital which the tax system represents. Consider: your wages are taxed, with what’s left, you invest in stocks of companies, the profits on the companies you invest in are taxed, with what’s left of that, the company pays you dividends or increases retained earnings, and then those dividends or capital gains are then taxed.

***End Quote***

We can’t even calculate the ax load we carrying. Taxes are buried inside everything.

Argh!

# # # # #


INTERESTING: Tom Snyder Dies At 71

Monday, July 30, 2007

http://www.knbc.com/entertainment/13779880/detail.html

Broadcaster Tom Snyder Dies At 71
His Smoke-Filled Interviews Were Late-Night Staple
POSTED: 6:14 am PDT July 30, 2007
UPDATED: 7:06 am PDT July 30, 2007

***Begin Quote***

SAN FRANCISCO — Talk show host Tom Snyder, whose smoke-filled interviews were a staple of late night television, has died after a struggle with leukemia. He was 71.

***End Quote***

That’s sad. I always like him. He was from what I call the “Johnny Carson – Pat Sajack” school of broadcasting. Just came across as a nice. never took himself too seriously and remembered his roots. I have no way of knowing if perception matched reality. But I’ll add his name to my “no I lay me down to sleep” list.

# # # # #


RANT: One good rant deserves another!

Sunday, July 29, 2007

http://katekosior.blogspot.com/2007/07/shame.html

Kate … naturally
Life’s a beach

Saturday, July 28, 2007
SHAME!

*** begin quote ***

Willfully disregarding all the bad press, and because they have to, Aetna released its earnings statement Thursday. They have made record profits by “higher premiums and reducing health care costs.” Translation: Making people pay more and providing them with less. BOO!

If you’re on Aetna and have another choice, this may be the time to leave.

Posted by Kate/Susan at 6:30 AM

Labels: rants

*** end quote ***

Perhaps, your derision is misplaced? I think the villain in story is the actor off stage — the gooferment.

Remember the Wage and Price controls of WW2? No, I didn’t think so. They happened before I was born too. The Gooferment instituted wage and price controls to fool the people and make their war cheaper than it actually was. Now, they can’t repeal the laws of economics. Business want to attract and retain better people. Since they couldn’t pay more, the meme of “benefits” was created. And, the gooferement let them game the system and it was tax deductible. TO make it even worse, the “benefit” was deductible to the business but not the individual. Argh!

Fast forward, thru all the laws, regulations, and diktats that makes healthcare unaffordable. Who did that? The gooferment!

Now, the politicians of both parties — who are merely different sides of the same criminal class — offer to rescue us from the problem they created. And, we criticize everyone but who we should be excoriating. The gooferment, the politicians, and the bureaucrats.

What a mess!

# # #

Note: One good rant deserves another!

# # # # #


%d bloggers like this: